mike741

"I see the problem now - wait, let me ask some clarifying questions."

He was quoting the claim you made. Shouldn't you have your own justification for it? Which tests did you run with both Fable as well as the best human programmers?

Em dashes, amazing x4, needing an LLM in the jungle... it's not proof but the red flags are there.

all of those predictions seem to have come true

i love this idea but i wish there was a simple way to play the sounds of whatever is currently selected. perhaps a play button near the top of the page or a spacebar hotkey

You're absolutely right! There was a crime. I appreciate the course correction—it’s a significant oversight on my part. I've updated our previous plan to better reflect that a crime occurred. You're under arrest.

You need a minimum threshold of karma in order to downvote others on HN. Additionally, accounts with more well received activity are harder to identify as shills. That's why there are black markets where social media accounts are bought and sold and the price is typically proportional to the account's karma.

which can then translate to real-world money points

TLDR: "Just do it." ~ Nike

You didn't state any complex tasks though. You only stated programmers who use LLMs.

Doesn't seem like completing debates with AI gets recorded anywhere and people are unlikely to recruit a friend just to test if it works. Additionally, a toggle option for public/private debates would make users less hesitant to create a new one. It's not immediately clear what the visibility of the debate will actually be.

Urgent updates can be necessary every once in a while but should be recognized as technical failures on the part of the developers. Failure can be forgiven, but only so many times. The comments saying "what about X update that had this feature I need?" are missing the point entirely. Instead ask yourself about all of the updates you've made without even looking at the patch notes, because there are just too many updates and not enough time. Instead of blaming the producers for creating a blackbox relationship with the consumers, we blame the consumer and blindly tell them to "just update." That's what needs to change. It's a bit similar to opaque ToS issues.

The study references "clinicians" rather than "doctors." Clinicians include psychologists, pharmacists, nurses, physicians, paramedics, etc.

66% accuracy is not "great" and definitely not the best there's ever been.

it will "only get better" they said https://www.google.com/search?q=chatgpt+will+%22only+get+bet...

for perspective, here's what 500k gallons (~0.04% of the eruption) of water vapor looks like: https://youtu.be/BIpeNs5OWbo?t=103

but i was told it can only get better? https://www.google.com/search?q=gpt+%22can+only+get+better%2...

oh wow. that seems like the sort of critical feature reddit should have built in.

thanks. is the nomination and voting a built in reddit feature? if so, this sounds like a good time to use it.

Aren't you on an alternative right now?

how were those moderators chosen the first time around? what's to prevent them from repeating that selection process? it might take a bit of work but the circumstances seem to merit at least that much.

but its people aren't allowed in? doesn't this prove reddit is not its people but rather a small group of moderators?

can someone explain why Reddit staff doesn't just forcibly reopen these subs and perma-ban their moderators?

> No one wants to look in the mirror and admit that

Then that includes the employees and executives at Amazon and is all the more reason to not allow them to punish others for behavior that is (according to you) universal.

> in an ML testing context

OP was not speaking in the ML testing context, hence the misunderstanding.

Right, so it can no longer be used to warn other viewers about scams and clickbait.

The test is novel to the program, just not its programmer. So are we testing the program or are we actually testing its programmer? If we're testing the program, then the programmer's foreknowledge is irrelevant.

Many =/= Most. The dislike ratio was extremely reliable when it came to identifying clickbait. Maybe you don't care about that but many others do.

If it is incorporated, its definitely not effective. Clickbait dominates Youtube's recommendations and search despite consistently low thumb ratings. An easy example would be a procedurally generated channel such as this one:

https://www.youtube.com/@futureunity5129/videos

Sort by "Popular" and you'll see that their most watched videos have consistently low like/dislike ratios yet are still being actively recommended. If you use Youtube's search feature, these same channels and videos will come up long before the actually informative channels do.

You could argue it's been helping Youtube by wasting viewer's time and making them watch extra ads but its certainly not helping the viewers find what they're looking for. Even mass reporting the channels doesn't seem to stop them.

if its "not that much" then why make site-wide changes?