It's not only AI that uses em-dashes, but AI only seems to use em-dashes.
And there's an ellipsis ascii char in there too (not 3 periods in sequence, a single ellipsis char), somewhat of another AI tell.
Yeah, and it's alt+k on my default keyboard layout on debian… I think some punctuation is available on macos as well — so perhaps it's a windows-ism that «only AI can use punctuation».
I usually don't complain about stuff being AI generated. But in this case, regardless of HOW it was written/generated, it reads exactly like claudese and frankly I am so exhausted of reading that particular voice that I made it half way through this article before I just couldn't do it anymore. I really don't care if AI was used, I care that it is readable. And frankly, it isn't.
Yeah. Different authors should have different voices. Having them all sound the same is like having all your food taste the same. It makes you want to throw up after a while.
I think you missed the point, "That particular voice" - is the claude vomit that I have to consume everyday and it makes me shudder every time I see it.
That voice grates on you. It grates on all of us. But it would grate on us less if we didn't hear it all the time - if it wasn't half of the words coming at us.
Dibes said, "I am so exhausted of reading that particular voice that I made it half way through this article before I just couldn't do it anymore." I think what I said is exactly to his point.
Because I don't care what a machine "thinks" I care what a real human thinks. We are losing the internet's remaining culture by consuming this type of content.
To restate what I put elsewhere, I genuinely don't think I care much for how it was written. The problem is that it felt exhausting to read and was chock full of the same claudese voice that makes claude so infuriatingly exhausting to read. I gave it a try and gave up halfway through. If it was AI generated but was a good read that conveyed a central point/theme, I wouldn't be complaining. This at least is trying to argue a single point, but it does so in what feels like at least 10x the word count.
> America getting potentially balanced by China and Europe in the Americas
I can't figure out a way to parse this sentence that makes sense. Are you saying that "Europe" will "balance" the USA in the Americas? As in, European influence will counteract US influence in the Americas?
Would assume it's in reference to things like the EU offering associate membership to Canada, or China's trade deals with Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Peru, etc.
> European influence will counteract US influence in the Americas?
Yes. If you’re Canada or Mexico or frankly anyone else in the Americas, you probably don’t want all your weapons systems to be dependant on American supply chains. And then if you think about it, you probably don’t want all your energy imports dependent on Washington’s noblesse. Et cetera.
American exceptionalism was built on the trust the world put in us getting so unilaterally powerful without being balanced.
If someone is doing something as a job... then surely they are, by definition, doing it for money? Otherwise, if they were doing it for fun, as a hobby, then we would call them hobbyists?
How would you get different behavior when you have completely decompiled the original binary and recompiled it to wasm? Shouldn't the result have identical behavior?
My understanding is that the source code itself is not the "goal" as much as a way to recompile the game for other architectures instead of having to use emulation to play the game. Also for modders who want to alter things at a low level (performantly).
Over time, as needed and where it makes the most sense, I could imagine that _rough_ source being cleaned up (same logic, but real names/comments added) so that it's easier to follow.
As LLMs make formal verification cheaper (they can generate proofs that can then be automatically checked) many of the verifiable components of software systems, such as compilers and microkernels, will be verified. I suppose the issue is that the critical bugs are rarely in compilers and microkernels, but more often in applications, such as web browsers, which are more difficult to formally verify.
Math in general is something that you don't need to know until you need to know it, the problem with "just in time" learning is that if you don't already know it then you won't even be able to know when it's needed and which specific bits of math you need to learn for the specific situation you find yourself in.
If you don't know math, you often won't be able to even realize when math is needed.
There's a Steve Yegge quote about this:
> You'll gradually realize that your math deficiencies aren't just something that you might need to beef up on if you ever "need to"; you'll see that virtually every problem space has a mathematical modeling component that you were blissfully unaware of until Done, and Gets Things Smart gal points it out to you and says, "There's an infinitely smarter approach, which by the way I implemented over the weekend." You stare slack-jawed for a little while, and then she says: "Here's a ball. Why don't you go bounce it?"
Yeah, that's true, and I've been in that situation. Unfortunately the math I was missing was not calculus or anything I had exposure to in school, or any actual experience in practical application. You can't know everything.
>Peer reputation and self policing works in a system where no money is at stake.
It works in systems where money is at stake too. You need a high trust, conscientous society. Doesn't mean that having one solves the issue entirely. The ocassional bad apple will fraud there too, but it wont be rampant enough to be a systemic problem.
>When your career and income are at stake, why would you take the risk of opposing Dan Ariely? Only someone who was already rich could do that.
You don't need independently wealthy scientists to expose fraud.
You just need an environment where if regular salary dependent scientists expose fraud, they're not punished for it.
If you don't have that, sure, then you need independently wealthy scientists to dare.
Lightsail also does not offer any form of virtual serial console to access a VM where you've accidentally broken networking or ssh, when even the crappiest lowendbox-tier VM provider generally does. The only way to 'recover' a lightsail VM that's in that state is to export the storage device to full amazon services starting from a $25/mo VM.
Well yeah, obviously. I think the point was that uptime is not the only concern, and that a service sufficiently attractive in other ways can get people to overlook a lack of reliability.
> Kant goes one level further. He says, basically: "before you do something, ask yourself: if everyone else in the world did what you're about to do as a matter of course, will it make the world better or worse? If it makes the world worse, then don't do it".
This is not the Categorical Imperative. What you're describing is more like Rule Utilitarianism. Kantian ethics is deontological, not consequentialist.
Hence my qualification at the start. My problem with deontological ethics is that the justification of it abruptly hits an impenetrable wall, i.e. the rule or the duty, unless you appeal to some benefit or prevention of harm to rational beings. Even in the Metaphysics of Morals, the whole concept of duty would be arbitrary if not in reference to rational beings. But happy to be corrected.
> Even in the Metaphysics of Morals, the whole concept of duty would be arbitrary if not in reference to rational beings.
In what sense? There's a sense in which there's no moral law without rational agents, but Kant himself is explicit about the "good will" being entirely independent of intended or obtained ends. In other words, no rational agent needs to benefit (or be harmed) in Kant's system for individuals to be morally blameworthy or praiseworthy.
(See GMS 4:394 for the "jewel" analogy, which is most popularly cited as evidence for Kant's position on this.)
I understand that this is the common (and perhaps the prevailing) interpretation, but my question has always been: once you subtract action potential and expected ends, what remains of the concept of "good"? We cannot simply end the inquiry by saying "good will" because it still doesn't clarify what it is that one wills. Disclaimer: not a Kantian scholar.
I think the very short version of Kant’s view is that “good” is not impinged upon by any particular desire or action. What makes the good will “good” is that it operates in conformity with duty, and duty in turn is derived from reason (and reason is a property of our ability to self-legislate, i.e. give ourselves law without engaging in casuistry.)
It's been twenty years since I read Kant, but it differs from utilitarianism in that it has no concern for utility of others, rather it's "if I could pick rules for everybody to follow, those are the rules I should follow. Ergo if I never want anybody to lie to me, then it is always immoral for me to lie -- anything else would be a contradiction, since it assumes two rational agents coming to different conclusions.
A good point, but (a) this merely sounds like a modification of the golden rule: do unto all others, without exception, as you would have done unto you, and (b) the rule isn't an end in itself because the end lies behind the "should" (e.g. why should someone not lie to me).
I am by no means an apologist for Kant, but his ethics are clearly deontological, not consequentialist. He categorically rejected applying empiracism to ethics. Again, my memory is fuzzy, but I believe that Kant further argues that ethical rules are fixed, since any rational actor properly reasoning from first principles would eventually land on the same set of rules.
It should not be surprising that contemporary ethical systems yield similar results in everyday situations because nobody will get published with their ethical theory of "why you should murder at least one innocent person per day."
It's not about what you actually want in this case, but what you could want. It's impossible to want people to betray your trust, because if you wanted it then it wouldn't be betraying your trust.
So that type of lying is strictly forbidden. You do not want to be deceived. But if include in "lies" such things as reading fiction aloud, then that can be permissible as you can want that: you aren't really deceived or betrayed.
reply