I think addressing people's expression of skepticism of the average motives of journalists by simply making the unqualified claim that the people expressing skepticism "know nothing" made the opposite point than you intended.
This is an article posted to Hacker News where a defendant was incarcerated by a judge for media manipulation, and journalists who were involved made statements to the judge in support of the defendant. Since the defendant was incarcerated, that makes the journalists involved closer to malfeasant than not, but the entirety of your claim is that there is never malfeasance involved in journalism and the skepticism of the people you're reprimanding is simply "populism." Frankly, that comes off as a bit malfeasant, in the reflexively defensive sense.
Would you like to claim I "know nothing" about the profession of journalism as well? How would you know that I know nothing about the profession of journalism?
> I think addressing people's expression of skepticism of the average motives of journalists by simply making the unqualified claim that the people expressing skepticism "know nothing" made the opposite point than you intended.
I don't see that as the case at all.
> How would you know that I know nothing about the profession of journalism?
A person's words are excellent evidence of what they do and don't know.
In the author’s defense they mentioned the NASA standard, and that guide— while legendary— isn't a "lacing" guide. Of the 50+ images, only 2 show lacing (acceptable v. unacceptable), and the rest is spot tying, zip tying or other harnessing. Always nice to see the link though
You’ve clearly been a victim of victims before. Your detailed analysis of these harms they’ve performed against you, and your warning not to listen to victims, is very concise, detailed, and clearly derived from experience. I think you’re right, I won’t take advice from someone trapped in a victimhood mentality
Edit: The current HN bio of this user amazes me. "Used to have close to 1000 karma, got destroyed over time by hackernews cancel culture and a change in downvote algorithms." This user is literally the victim who doesn't know that they're a victim that they "see all the time." This makes perfect sense, assuming they own mirrors
Now, if I had a victimhood mentality, I would be decrying the fact that this comment was downvoted. But I won't, because the downvoting is a positive that helps prove my point. Thank you for the downvote, unknown victim of victims, I am eternally grateful to you and your kind
This is exactly what happened in digital audio signal processing and recording, where word size represents amplitude. 12-bit audio was the first word size that provided a pretty good noise floor by the late 1980s, a real improvement over 8-bit. And by the mid-80s the CD format was already providing 16-bits for playback, which really is good enough for most playback scenarios. The 16-bit DSP era was just a few years longer than the 12-bit and quickly gave way to 24-bit, which provides a noise floor good enough for almost anything audio processing and recording related and is still the standard after more than 20 years. I have gear that defaults to 32-bit now, obviously just for power-of-2 convenience in software dev, which is annoying because the file sizes are bigger for basically no reason.
(The master buses in DAWs and digital hardware use even larger word lengths these days, but it's not really the same thing, that's a summing and calculation process)
The workflow update-deps.yaml will periodically check for new updates of SBCL or the linked libraries. If an update is found, it edits build.env and creates a pull request that will check that the set of dependencies can be compiled and linked without errors.
McQuillan’s central point here that ChatGPT is a “bullshit generator” and not “artifically intelligent” is really apt. What we’re often working on in the industry is emulating the worst uses of intelligence processes, that humans also use, like optimized BS generation. Seeing ChatGPT turn into the equivalent of a competent essay-spitting undergrad is distressing; the internet is now such a mass of human-generated BS, it's hard to believe people will be arguing and competing with machine optimized and generated BS speech.
The most powerful and effective and immediately available BS generators will probably rely on machine-generated, unhinged speech. I truly fear for the future of the few reputable internet forums left, because even intelligent people tend to engage with well-optimized BS generators, whether driven by human or machine.
“There’s more than one way to skin a cat” is a very strange expression a highly skilled worker who trained me in a complex task twenty years ago would put it. All the ways of skinning the cat work. No, I still don’t totally understand the expression, but I always understood what he meant ;)
What I was getting at is that by framing it in an evocative prompt (that is probably fake and never worked) they are planting the idea of a trainable AI in your mind, like a magician predicting what number you will pick.
There is no trainable AI in the input or in the output, but there is one in the story built in your mind.
This is not exclusive to AI, this is about social media / news storytelling. In this specific instance technical people buying the bullshit spreads it further.
Just smearing that huge skid mark of disinformation alllll over the internet :D
I think it's not so much “buying" it, as understanding the larger point that’s being made about the class of technology in order to make much more critical points. Quibbling over the later stages of exploit execution instead of focusing on all the classes of vulnerabilities that lead to exploits don’t necessarily make us more secure either, as is sometimes claimed
Meta comment: I understand why this was downvoted and am impressed (not complaining at all) but please keep in mind that the top of the thread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34677527) was later hijacked by a completely unrelated sensationalist political issue. The initial comment that caused that was later deleted, yet somehow its responses remained at the top:
Been reading HN since 2006 or so and started going to meetups from it soon after that. A bit sad to see how threads can get hijacked by a comment as low value as "GPT is a calculator for words" directly into a sensationalist political issue.
While there’s undoubtedly demand for Blackwater meets Uber in the nouveau riche set, I don't think this goes far enough in securing the arriviste’s perimeter. How can I be sure my Gigachad operatives aren’t also being hired by my many opponents and detractors? How can the same foreign aristocrat who is after me be using the same Gigachads as me on a gig-work basis??
To be fair, that does already happen, and that’s why I have Gigachads watching my Gigachads. My own Gigachads are sworn enemies of my opponent’s Gigachads, and STILL, they are constantly selling each other out, often over jewelry or strangely-chambered boutique firearms. I think this is just another bunch of dilettante college kids I don't trust with my perimeter.
This is an article posted to Hacker News where a defendant was incarcerated by a judge for media manipulation, and journalists who were involved made statements to the judge in support of the defendant. Since the defendant was incarcerated, that makes the journalists involved closer to malfeasant than not, but the entirety of your claim is that there is never malfeasance involved in journalism and the skepticism of the people you're reprimanding is simply "populism." Frankly, that comes off as a bit malfeasant, in the reflexively defensive sense.
Would you like to claim I "know nothing" about the profession of journalism as well? How would you know that I know nothing about the profession of journalism?