It rings very true,
The [un]simulated, with the extra icky purpose of presenting of veneer of ethics to back any an all arguments under the sun, to pour money into the latest fad that tickles a billionaire's fancy.
You can't quite (yet) do that with pro-life advocacy.
E/Acc where Might makes Right, is the not at all repulsive and most ontologically sound source for ethics! Not at all burting at the seems with perverted eugenics, it's not morally dubious if none of your enemies survive to criticise you!
LLM’s aren’t nearly random enough to ever produce the entire works of Shakespeare, no matter how much infinite time you give them (though I’m sure they are capable of abominable stitchings of regurgitated quotes/snippets).
It’s always baffling when people (who’ve given it adequate thought) take library of babel type of things seriously, while ignoring the overwhelming amount of nonsense, that would be hard to separate unless all you looking for is an exact echo of your query.
I was really puzzled by it until I realized it’s supposed to be the “stop” button. ▶️⏸️⏹️
Now I am cringing at someone who would deliberately choose being so obtuse and cryptic.
Presumably this ought to quicken to death of Twitter, so it's not necessarily ALL bad news. In the meantime there is always copy paste, it's not perfect receipts, but it's sufficient for most sneering purposes.
EDIT: It is a bit nuts considering the number of Official Agencies world wide that issue press releases on twitter, and not really anywhere else convenient to access by the general public (Although that is also them displaying questionnable practices.)
Possible countermeasure: Insist on “crediting” the LLM as the commit author, to regain sanity when doing git blame.
I agree that worse doc is a bad enough future, though I remain optimistic that including LLM in compile step is never going to be mainstream enough (or anything approaching stable enough, beyond some dumb useless smoke and mirrors) for me to have to deal with THAT.
Unhinged is another suitable adjective.
It's noteworthy that how the operations plan seems to boil down to "follow you guts" and "trust the vibes", above "Communicating Well" or even "fact-based" and "discussion-based problem solving". It's all very don't think about it, let's all be friends and serve the company like obedient drones.
This reliance on instincts, or the esthetics of relying on instincts, is a disturbing aspect of Rats in general.
It’s not bayesian reasoning without actual math, and many beliefs are not so easily quantified under any statistical framework.
All it really offers is unwarranted confidence in one’s own rationality, often used in these circles to cloak nauseating positions.
Making ideas « pay rent », In these circles is also used for black-pilling people into rejecting common sense and humanity. It’s good to be skeptical of new ideas or new claims, it’s even good to analyze and synthesize your own beliefs, it’s a bit dangerous to say that every belief is negotiable, and to give the tools to others the tools to mould them (here be cult dragons).
Despite it’s flaws, it is a good opening to the Declaration of Independence of the US (not American myself): « we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all [people] are […] equal […] with certain unalienable rights »
You can’t get morals from stats, and some core ideals ought to live in your mind rent-free.
Listen to me.
YOU DO NOT THINK IN SUFFICIENT DETAIL ABOUT SUPERJOCKS CONSIDERING WHETHER OR NOT TO BULLY YOU. THAT IS THE ONLY POSSIBLE THING WHICH GIVES THEM A MOTIVE AND POPULARITY TO FOLLOW THROUGH ON THE BULLYING.
It was so funny that I read it as an intentionnal self-deprecating (and by extension towards the community) joke, maybe I am too optimistic towards human nature ^^ (especically of the Ratty kind).
Sneerious rephrasing:
I would also tell them that the rationality cargo culting, is the only way to portray understanding things,
fake it till you make it, you can solve this insecurity that I have about myself in you!
Other people are untinking NPCs, they don't see the cracks in the matrix (and PC hellscape) like I do.
And those shadows are just as sentient as we are, even if they don't depict the world, they convey a perception of a hypothetical world in which they are accurate!
Trying to grapple with the meaning consciousness through input/output is so close to being philosophical zombies type interesting, and yet so far and vacuous in what he actually says, that could apply to dice picking which color the sky is today. Also pretty hilarious that we would choose being WRONG, as a baseline (because LLM's are so bad) for outrospection, instead using the more natural cooperative nature of language. (Which machines fail at, which is maybe also why)