Every time, unless my initial request was perfectly outlined in unambiguous pseudocode. It's just too easy to write ambiguous requests.

Unambiguous but human-readable pseudocode is what I strive for now, though I will often ask AI to help edit the pseudocode to remove ambiguities prior to generating code.

It's the party in charge that wrote a bill they knew that no Democrats could accept.

On the other hand you have a guy who kinda liked crypto.

You call it "basically a mirror"? Do you see the absurdity of comparing the two things as if they're even remotely close to one another?

Then when searching / browsing or doing anything unsafe, everything the LLM sees can be put in the "data" bucket, while everything the user types in would be in the "instruction" bucket.

The law applies to all LGBTQ+ identities, the most common being lesbian/gay, but trans is also part of it - and the trans part was singled out on twitter for some reason.

The law does not even prevent schools from outing kids. It prevents schools from FORCING employees to do it (with threat of losing their job if they don't).

School employees CAN STILL out kids to their parents in California. They just don't have to as a policy anymore. Which is perfectly reasonable, because sometimes the school employees see kids with extremely homophobic and abusive parents.

Nobody wants to out a kid to parents like that, and without this law, school employees get put in a position of asking themselves "Do I out the kid to their parents, who will likely beat them? Or do I refuse and lose my job?"

If it affects the base projects (especially the open source ones like Llama) then it affects the consumers. And it certainly looks like it's planning to affect the base projects, in a lot of negative ways.

If this bill passed in any way remotely similar to what it is now, Meta would have to entirely stop releasing open source Llama updates.

Which is perhaps the intent of the legislation.

Once someone depends on a legal source of income, if that source of income gets banned in the future, they generally get to keep that source of income "grandfathered in" if they take the issue to court.

People can and will switch platforms, it's not that big of a deal...

But how did you define the rock? Are you saying every set of particles is self aware of being that set of particles?

> They are smart people. About that I have no doubt. But I’ve seen how they treat rules. I know what they think of ethics.

Also:

> I have never met Sam, and I have only met Greg a couple of times.

I'm just saying, breaking rules in business is not necessarily the same as being unethical. Especially financial/regulatory capture rules like it seems the author is complaining about.

Different things are at stake with AI, and I think we're all aligned.

I'm just saying it's not as bad because it's quite a bit easier to switch a database than to switch a game engine.

At least with these individual tools, it's usually not your entire codebase written around that thing. For instance, you can generally switch from one database to another if they decide to overcharge you. You can even switch from one cloud service to another. In other words, they (usually) don't have you nearly as locked in.

With Unity, it is a much bigger ordeal to switch to something like Godot and Unreal and most people who have already finished their games can't even really consider it as an option. This is why it was so egregious.

Most of the users who would have agreed with you already got rich, because they understood the things you understand, and they don't use the site much anymore as a result (they are no longer in the rat race). They've mostly checked out.

So, because the people who remain on this site are those who never bought any, and people like to hear that they were right, the groupthink tends to be unrealistically negative about it.

Do you think girl scouts are scumbags too?

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36013076

Points: 4

# Comments: 0