Lol I thought your link was “here’s a rocket designed by an LLM” rather than one designed by the non-LLM AI.

LLMs are a local minimum that tech bros are stuck trying to optimize to a generally useful point because its language abilities are able to fool so many (just like how a real person talking with confidence can fool so many).

This obsession with LLMs is making me question general human intelligence more lol. It’s looking more and more like we are just dumb apes but get lucky and every now and then a smart ape is born and teaches the other dumb apes how to bring their stupidity to whole new levels.

Going for less known names can also help, as they are trying to build/maintain a reputation in addition to sales.

IKEA is an interesting brand because it spans from incredibly cheap to nice quality, and personally, I find the cheapness is more in the material selection than the design. Like the furniture I got from them at my last place all survived the move to my current place, even the one I got frustrated with and stopped caring if it made it when taking it apart, it still stands solid today. They are one of the few that has decent value, though their prices can get pretty high at the high end.

Yeah, it’s more of a late stage capitalism “luxury” where the difference isn’t so much in the quality as in the price because people conflate “price” with “quality” and “desireability”.

And I do understand it, at least to a degree. I try to do research on more expensive items or ones I’m looking for quality in, but it’s kinda exhausting, and often a cycle of “I want thing, see it in store and remember I want it, look at options, no idea which (if any) are decent and which suck, start looking online, decide I don’t want to do this right now, move on, forget to do research, repeat next time I’m at that store”.

The easy mode of doing that would be look at options, assume cheapest ones suck, most expensive is too much, get one of the ones a little cheaper. At which point, the seller just needs to set a higher price to get a sale on the crappy ones.

Also all those glass parking lot comments.

Yeah, I thought it might be a different kind of AI, at least, until it fucking said “LLM”.

They don’t assess risk, they correlate words. Even if they can be massaged to use a tool to assess risk in a more accurate way, they don’t evaluate risk assessments and determine how that should affect strategy or tactics, they correlate words. They don’t even do math that puts a value on human life to determine if an action is worth the cost, they just correlate fucking words. All based on given training data, so anything they can offer for real is already out there, and everything else is suspect because it’s purely based on correlations of words.

It’s like reading the Art of War and thinking that means you’re ready to be a general.

But something AI might do is introduce uncertainty that might get used to try to excuse a nuclear strike a human wanted to do.

If you want a demo on how bad these AI coding agents are, build a medium-sized script with one, something with a parse -> process -> output flow that isn’t trivial. Let it do the debug, too (like tell it the error message or the unwanted behaviour).

You’ll probably get the desired output if you’re using one of the good models.

Now ask it to review the code or optimize it.

If it was a good coding AI, this step shouldn’t involve much, as it would have been applying the same reasoning during the code writing process.

But in my experience, this isn’t what happens. For a review, it has a lot of notes. It can also find and implement optimizations. The weighs are the same, the only difference is that the context of the prompt has changed from “write code” to “optimize code”, which affects the correlations involved. There is no “write optimal code” because it’s trained on everything and the kitchen sink, so you’ll get correlations from good code, newbie coders, lesson examples of bad ways to do things (especially if it’s presented in a “discovery” format where a prof intended to talk about why this slide is bad but didn’t include that on the slide itself).

I bet if these get used that soon after there will be new extreme maintenance videos that make those cell towers look like nothing. Probably some guy hanging from a powered cable climbing device, showing the things on the ground getting smaller and smaller, occasionally taking a puff from an asthma inhaler because they were told an oxygen tank would cause weight issues (it’s actually about financial issues), until enough people die that they realize it’s cheaper to pay for oxygen than training new workers.

Depending on how the turbine is set up, it could generate AC power instead of DC. I believe they even have several options on how to do this.

I wonder if the way they tested it to get those higher numbers was something like finding a field where birds were roosting with windmills present, then fire off some massive fireworks at night and assume any bird that died did so because of the windmills.

Assuming they didn’t just pull the numbers out of their ass and actually designed a bad faith experiment that could inflate bird deaths.

Nice, enjoy!

An alternative that will avoid the user agent trick is to curl | cat, which just prints the result of the first command to the console. curl >> filename.sh will write it to a script file that you can review and then mark executable and run if you deem it safe, which is safer than doing a curl | cat followed by a curl | bash (because it’s still possible for the 2nd curl to return a different set of commands).

You can control the user agent with curl and spoof a browser’s user agent for one fetch, then a second fetch using the normal curl user agent and compare the results to detect malicious urls in an automated way.

A command line analyzer tool would be nice for people who aren’t as familiar with the commands (and to defeat obfuscation) and arguments, though I believe the problem is NP, so it won’t likely ever be completely foolproof. Though maybe it can be if it is run in a sandbox to see what it does instead of just analyzed.

I’d also accept that car Homer designed. Or a cyber truck.

Lmao you hyperbole’d your own statement quoted back at you.

Or have there been cases of KDE preferers/devs doing this to gnome preferers/devs?

Oh I agree, but as long as they can find people to buy their weapons (even on credit that depends on successfully using them) or weild them for them, they won’t be going anywhere. And automation is quickly approaching the point where they won’t even need others to choose to fight.

Problem with arms races is you can’t end them unless everyone agrees to end them, otherwise you just forfeit.

Try a live USB, lets you boot into a linux flavour without needing to install it (plus has handy buttons to start a real install if you desire).

I procrastinated moving to linux for pretty much the same reason. I hated windows more and more with each passing day but wasn’t excited about the part of the learning curve where I was even less effective using linux than I was at using windows.

But I was pleasantly surprised to find I didn’t have to go through that stage at all. The same “discover settings” works for customizing (but it’s better because linux devs don’t have any metrics pushed on them by marketing or MBAs who think user goodwill and patience is infinite when they are “captured”, leading to hidden or buried settings so most users just go with what MS wants).

Setup was easier, though deceptively so because I wasn’t expecting the answer to “gpu drivers?” to be “already installed” and was skeptical until I had a game running. I did do a bunch of reading during the process but could have just used the defaults for most things and kinda regret some where I didn’t (like snapshots are probably worth the disk space they use).

But the best part is that I haven’t had to go on little “ok why the fuck is this <back to the default setting/behaving differently/addressing me without my prompting or a reason worthy of my PC interrupting me>?” adventures and wade through outdated MS help forum posts where if the problem was solved, it wasn’t by the useless MS rep that seems to be struggling just to understand the words being used (indicated by copy/pasting anything that is vaguely related as a response, rather than actually addressing the question) to either figure out how to force it or give up until the next time it annoys me enough to search again.

I haven’t had a single imaginary “it’s my fucking computer, not yours” argument since switching and wish I had just tried sooner because it was way less friction than expected.

That “refusing to continue communication” might have even just been “couldn’t hear or feel vibrations from incoming calls”. It’s also possible he thought they weren’t being helpful and decided it was a waste of time to rely on them (all depends on how that initial call went, though the fact that they say he didn’t ask for help but he says he did could suggest a communication breakdown or tone mismatch).

It did sound like he was unprepared for how to handle such an emergency if they didn’t even use the warming gear they had. But the question is at what point does unpreparedness become criminal and did he really have extra responsibility for her safety even if he thought they were equally experienced, or that she was at least experienced enough to handle her own safety? Unless the defense is lying completely, it sounds like the prosecution isn’t approaching this in good faith and might be seeking revenge instead of justice.

Fwiw, just because a dumb phone doesn’t give you access to “smart” features doesn’t mean the capabilities aren’t present on the phone. It’s just a matter of what could be hidden on the circuit board (lots can be hidden in chips), and what can be hidden in usual expected traffic (if bandwidth requirements are low, even timing of packets could be used to encode hidden data that would never show up in any logs).

Plus the simple tracking of cellphones is necessary for them to function at all.

A robot can theoretically drive better than a human because emotions and boredom don’t have to be involved. But we aren’t there yet and Teslas are trying to solve the hard mode of pure vision without range finding.

Also, I suspect that the ones we have are set up purely as NNs where everything is determined by the training, which likely means there’s some random-ass behaviour for rare edge cases where it “thinks” slamming on the accelerator is as good an option as anything else but since it’s a black box no one really understands, there’s no way to tell until someone ends up in that position.

The tech still belongs in universities, not on public roads as a commercial product/service. Certainly not by the type of people who would at any point say, “fuck it, good enough, ship it like that”, which seems to be most of the tech industry these days.

What a fucking whiny loser. Gets caught cheating and starts crying about how curling is based on trust probably because he exploited that trust to get to the olympics in the first place.

Send him home. Even if it costs the team any medals they have a chance at, better to shut that shit down hard than stand by it to get medals that will be tainted by the whole thing anyways.

Glad I already dgaf about curling or the olympics, otherwise I’d be concerned that remarks like that might make people think that curling should just be a casual backyard sport that doesn’t belong in the Olympics if “trusting your opponents” is more important than “following the rules”.

What a dumb fucker. Hope he doesn’t have a lot of other trash like him to rally around his worthless take.