wagesj45

What country is that?

C# is good. I use Visual Studio on Windows, so I’m not familiar with the tooling in VS Code in Linux, but I’ve heard good things. .NET is a nice environment to work in, the runtime works on all the OSs, and you can even package it into a self-contained binary with a little finagling.

It’s always a matter of degrees. The bigger the injustice, the more violence is justified to rectify it. It is in the disproportionality, in my view, where the problem arises.

Never forget that humans are just barely evolved apes. Sometimes a swift knock to the head is required to activate those neural pathways to discourage anti-social behavior. Not always, but also not never. Claiming otherwise is just self-aggrandizing moralization that people use to make themselves sound and feel superior.

I think a lot of people in this thread are just upset/projecting because this is the first real hint that they’re not as much of a special-boy-programmer as they think. OP’s use case is fairly limited in scope, using the LLM for something it is actually pretty good for, and never implied he doesn’t check the output. They’ll never admit it, and will deflect, but they’re just worried.

Of course he knows why he made the changes. He made them. But computers are much faster as typing and with a sophisticated enough LLM you can offload some gruntwork. I’d argue if you’re not utilizing all the tools at your disposal, you’re not performing like you should.

And the article is making the case explicitly that this is bad. He is saying that 9/11 brought about terrible actions from us and that we should learn lessons and not repeat our mistakes. He’s actually trying to convince the reader that we should not “swallow” another genocide.

You keep describing it as jingoistic and the author didn’t claim or even appear to be heavily nationalistic and in fact appeared quite the opposite.

…did you read the post? It feels like you did not read the content of the post.

I think we just have to accept that marketing has to dumb down and generalize for the mass market.

So they’re using our data and also getting paid for it

Yeah? Isn’t that the point of paying for a music service? I pay, they give me access to music and curate it in a way that would be enjoyable to me. How could they do that without some information about me? This is a prime example of what a company should use your data for.

This logic is really sending me, man.

If it’s a neural network doing it, then that’s fine.

Fair, but the more people you have, with more diverse viewpoints, the harder it will be to get people to agree on what is hateful. And the more nuanced your laws, the harder it will be to agree on what is reasonable or even clear.

If the populace has a bigoted plurality, then they get to declare what is officially hateful. So yes, you’re right.

I put the onus on the collective citizenry, but there is no perfect solution in reality. There is a role for the state to play in protecting people, I just don’t think they should dip much into what speech is or isn’t allowed. The majority should rule in my opinion, but we have the job of maintaining a majority that isn’t regressive bigoted shitheads. It’s an eternal struggle, unfortunately.

You’re partly right. But it’s the job of the citizenry to stand up to this stuff, not the state. We can’t keep our heads down and hope it goes away on its own. We shouldn’t allow the state, with its monopoly on violence, to fight our social battles for us.

I dislike the idea of the state getting to start making decisions on what is “hateful”. And I’m disgusted we don’t have more people standing up and loudly declaring how wrong the hateful viewpoints are. It is our responsibility and we are failing.

It is a tempting proposition to let the state handle hateful speech, but we don’t have to look much further than Florida to see what happens when the shit side is in power and starts redefining what is “hateful”.

I thought the point was a mental BDSM exercise where you come to others for help and are instead punished for your ignorance.

Posters aren’t saying that its impossible to put search results through an LLM and ask it to cite the source it reads. They’re saying that the neural networks, as used today in LLMs, do not store token attribution in the vocabulary or per node. You can implement a system for the neural network to work in that provides it the proper input (search results) and prodding (a prompt that encourages the network to biasing toward citation), not that the single LLM can conceptualize of that on its own.

Neither do I.

Consider switching now. Your continued usage is contributing to the user numbers they see reported that gives them the confidence to pull this shit in the first place.

oh look, the fun police are here

I was just reiterating your point and agreeing with you, bud.