xdavidliu

i thought i was the only one who did this!

first time I found out about it was on reddit

https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/s/QJ5uNP5XMT

additionally, the "get scared" is only if the theranos test incorrectly gives a "something is wrong" diagnosis. What if the theranos test incorrectly gives an "everything is ok" diagnosis? Then the patient does not get scared when they should be, and potentially get significantly harmed

prosecuted and indicted for both, convicted by jury for only latter

your parent comment just wanted to get a shot of serotonin by chiming and showing off that they've read (or are merely aware of) the book

in her position, given her history, it is 100% rational to continue lacking principles

> People who get inaccurate diagnostics get scared.

That's only true if those people always follow up with a second test using traditional means. If they don't follow-up and instead immediately go past diagnostics into some sort of action, then it could be catastrophic in a manner exceeding being scared.

Now you can argue that if the patient is working with any medical practitioner worth their salt, that med will surely ask for a second test. But is it obvious that that will always be the case?

i think what's going on here is similar to why celebrities are often curt with people that come up to them. Some celebrities are actual douchebags, but others are not necessarily so but just get so many people coming up to them and saying the same thing to them.

It comes down to two mismatches: first being the famous person's own patience, which is just a normal amount, but instead of usual number of others going up to them now it's 100 or 1000x the number of others.

The second mismatch is the information asymmetry: the famous person him/herself knows that they have gotten 100x people going up to them and saying / asking the same thing, and they know that they will continue getting this for the rest of their life, so they respond with annoyance, which is completely understandable. However, the average person going up to them isn't gonna think that many logical steps and realize this; they're just saying "oh cool, it's a celeb, I never see celebs. Let me try to talk to them!"

"I am 100% sure Microsoft stock will go up 20% tomorrow!"

"i call bs. Why don't you bet your money on it then?"

"well you shouldn't be talking either, you haven't bet money on the stock going down!"

"I am 100% sure Microsoft stock will go up 20% tomorrow!"

"i call bs. Why don't you bet your money on it then?"

"well you shouldn't be talking either, you haven't bet money on the stock going down!"

I think you misunderstood. His mouth was not at "the proof is correct". His mouth was at "you are not really certain that the proof is incorrect". Those two are not the same thing, so flipping the accusation back at him and saying "you should've bet on the proof being correct then" does not actually make any sense.

edit: in other words, if there is anything that he should bet on, it's "the other guy wasn't really certain that the proof is wrong, he is just bloviating". That's a different bet than "the proof is correct".

> By standard semantics, if you state that believing with certainty that the proof is incorrect is stupid, then you surely believe with certainty that it's correct.

you might want to think a little bit harder on this

this argument clearly does not make sense

ah sorry i should clarify what I mean. I meant to say that it's probably true that very few consumers care about or want this feature, but this feature was desired by the company manufacturing this to sweeten the picture for their own investors

i think what they are saying is that if you really so certain that the proof is incorrect, you would put on that claim and rest assured that you would win. Especially since the position you are claiming is currently at less than 10%, you stand to win a large amount of money.

The person you are arguing with made no such claim of certainty either one way or the other, so they have no reason to bet anything.

my guess is so that the company can say on the earnings call that they are going digital / going ai or whatever, "and here's 10 products we have that are taking active steps in that direction".

recently i noticed logging into vanguard that if I use firefox autofill password, vanguard always says my password is incorrect, but typing it manually it works. I could clear my password from firefox, type it correctly and login, select "remember my password", log back out and back in, and then have it rejected.

so I figured that the way to make it work is to have it autofill, then select my username and press space then backspace, which is a no-op. That way, the javascript knows i've entered something, and then it works.

> It's in a similar vein to people who reply to questions with "well Claude says: <chat transcript dump>"

or substantially worse: "<chat transcript dump>"

i recall reading somewhere that Steve Bannon, yes that Steve Bannon, once ran a mmo bot farm in asia in the early 2010s

i think they are responding to the point, not missing it

there are many dated expressions, including

- AI is just a tool, like excel; it does what the human operating it tells it to

- next token prediction cannot be true understanding

- models can have no desires and goals, don't anthropomorphize it

However, "hallucination" is very much not one of them

not at that scale though

im still confused, i was asking about how a cli based ai allows you to choose any linux flavor and customize. i dont understand how slop documentation answers that?

im out of the loop here, whats the last sentence referring to?

i've always wondered at the intimate relation between risk, dopamine, anticipation, and utility. I'm not an expert and only going by amateur armchair observation, but i suspect that evolution has spent a lot of attention on the problem of non-guaranteed rewards, and the phenomenon of gambling addiction is merely a reflection of that, just like how that of adhd is a reflection of ancient humans needing to be overly alert for subtle signs of danger (or something like that, not an expert)

That "live in a place with possibility" surely triggers the anticipation part of dopamine (which is what it really is, more so than the pleasure part). Dopamine is also intimately connected to movement: i.e. the shakes for people with neurological conditions as well as addicts going through withdrawal or about to relapse.

i'm curious what the two customers were

totally false equivalency. wolfram alpha cannot one shot word problems for one, and there are many many more.

> Since people have mistaken my texts for LLM-generated before, I’ll tell you that it is 100% human written without any AI-assistance.

> This is the game changer.

> This is not communication. It’s a tool output.

Not saying I'm 100% sure, but those seemed slightly sus to me

i'm always baffled when i see arguments like this:

- AI is just a tool

- it's just a stochastic parrot

- it's just next token prediction

- glorified autocomplete

it's like the person making them is stuck in 2021. Also the "stateless" thing is completely nonsensical.

> to make ‘GET’ requests, meaning they could <not> send data to them.

no way, I refuse to believe this is quote from that report. Can someone please point out what I'm missing here?