I always sort of speculated that sports existed to channel what would otherwise be human tendencies toward violence; an outlet enablining more stable civilization. Even though I largely ignore sports, I appreciate it over possible alternatives.
What I find most interesting is that HN posters seem to overwhelmingly skew liberal, but HN flaggers lean extremist “conservative”. They rarely post, but completely control the discourse of the posters. Thats a crazy dynamic.
That's one possible interpretation. Another possible one is people don't want to see HN become Trump, Trump, Trump and maybe some other story like the rest of the news.
It just pushes everything to the middle. If you think logically about it, since there are few if any conservative posts, it makes sense that flagging appears to be conservative because the majority of posts that need to be flagged are liberal. If suddenly there were lots of conservative posts, the liberal flaggers would appear.
If you want evidence of this consider comments. Conservative comments are often quickly downvoted.
Out of curiosity, if you asked for the same text extraction multiple times, each inside fresh contexts, is it likely to fabricate unique quotes each time? And if so, a) might that be a procedure we train humans to do to better understand LLM unreliability, and 2) and instrumentalize the behavior to measure answer overlap with non LLM statistical tools?
Also, quote-presence testing/linking against source would seem to be a trivial layer to build on a chat interface, no LLM required. Just highlight and link the longest common strings.
Edit: Oop, I misread! Right, yes, the change up was arguably not entirely boring. Some people were excited at least.
Originally: To be the annoying pedant, version numbers did still monotonically increase, even with the gap, because each version is >= to the last. The mono means a single direction, not a step size of one.
The rationale for rejecting the syndrome was the reported scientific consensus of the impossibility of such a device being smaller than a large truck. The revelation that such a device is possible, exists, works and is full of Russian parts seemed to change things. Further, the coincidental appearance of Russian agents on video within operational radius of incidents wearing backpacks sized to contain the device raises some questions.
Probably your DNS -- the archive.today guy is a stickler that dns must pass client subnet to partially deanonymize visitors, and for instance, cloudflare's 1.1.1.1 server doesn't pass it. I think that's still the case.
I’ve had tinnitus since I was maybe 5 years old, maybe from my frequent ear infections at the time? I remember discovering it during nap time and noting that silence had a high-pitched, discordant set of tones to it. But I thought it receded when normal sounds, like people talking, tv or music, or wind occurred. It was just the sound of silence.
I still have it, and now I know what it is. I think it’s worse now, but I can still unconsciously ignore it most of the time, although knowing what it is and that it’s aberrant and not something everyone hears has made it psychologically more irritating than when I was young.
Is it “plagiarism” to misattribute hallucinated quotes? Not that a whole lot of sloppy, unprofessional shortcuts weren’t taken, but plagiarism doesn’t seem like the right word, as quotes are almost definitionally not plagiarism. But maybe these were paraphrasings masquerading as quotes, so maybe that’s the difference.
Yeah, it's the lack of attribution that is key, even if it sounds like a trivial and ceremonial step. If a New York Times reporter writes "'Our investigation has completely stalled,' Kings County Sheriff Bob Jones told the Springfield Observer", I can infer that the NYT is reliant on local reporting for this story and may not have done original on-the-ground work themselves.
Imagine how flimsy Ars' story about a blog post would look like if the story had correctly attributed the quotes (fabricated or not) to, "according to Claude AI's analysis of the blog post". The reader would have the right to wonder if the reporter had even read the blog post.
Plagiarism hurts not only the original author (in this case, I don't think we have to worry about the LLM), but also the reporter's audience, who has an expectation that the writer's reporting and analysis are original and based on the writer's own research and observations. At the very least it's a theft of the reader's time, if I wanted an LLM's perspective on a topic, I'd generate it myself
One of the things left unsaid in Edwards's apology [0] was whether he read the blog post that is the entire raison d'etre of his story. It's not like the story purported to do anything other than incorporate publish blog posts. So in his overworked and sickened state, how did trying out an "experimental Claude Code-based AI tool" substantially save him time versus jotting notes while ostensibly reading the source material himself
"Slop" and "hallucinate" have meanings outside of AI too, but it's easier to repurpose existing words than come up with a whole new lexicon for AI failure modes.
I don’t believe that’s true. Private Cloud Compute is restricted to newer phones that already support on device Apple
Intelligence. It’s just that the on device model is basically limited to simple stuff. Safari page summarization and the text rewriting features are run in the cloud. You can tell because those features go away without a network connection, and don’t cause the phone to warm.
I think people that aren’t objecting to AI mass surveillance of populations: haven’t recognized how thorough and invasive these technologies will become; think the current governments share their values and lists of enemies; naively think government priorities will never change, and that scopes will never increase.
reply