Goading companies into improving image and video generation by showing them how terrible they are is only going to make them go faster, and personally I’d like to enjoy the few moments I have left thinking that maybe something I watch is real.
It will evolve into people hooked into entertainment suits most of the day, where no one has actual relationships or does anything of consequence, like some sad mashup of Wall-E and Ready Player One.
If we’re lucky, some will want to meatspace with augmented reality.
Maybe we’ll get really nice holovisions, where we can chat with virtual celebrities.
Who needs that?
We’re already having to shoot up weight-loss drugs because we binge watch streaming all the time. We’ve all given up, assuming AI will do everything. What good will come from having better technology when technology is already doing harm?
There are way ways past this, from religion and Amish-style cultural approaches, to legal prohibition of making and selling and using it, to dictatorial control of the companies which could make it, to individuals being personally immune, to paying people money if they don't use it. Like there are people who avoid alcohol, opioids, heroin, all other wireheading-style drugs and experiences that exist already, and people who do exercise and stay thin in a world of fast food and cars.
A great filter needs to apply to every civilisation imaginable, no exceptions, nerfing billions of species before they get to a higher Kardashev scale, not just something that "could happen" or the latest “Dunning-Kruger” mic-drop in every thread. In 1960s "the great filter is nuclear war", in 1890 "the great filter is heroin", in 1918 "the great filter is world war, we are destined to destroy ourselves", in 2015 "the great filter is climate change our emissions will end us like bacteria in a petri dish", in antiquity "the great filter is the punishment for crossing the will of the Gods".
It's got to be something you cannot get around even if you try really really hard and get very very lucky, because there are ~200,000,000,000 stars in the Milky Way and with those numbers there will be some species which lucks its way past almost any candidate, spreads out and in a mere 100k years is all over this galaxy leaving rocket trails and explosion signatures and radio signals and terraforming signs and megastructures.
> So there’s a little live reporting on the situation in the streets.
> I offered no aid.
I just want to say I find this writing style refreshing as it’s a bit out of distribution for typical HN comments. Anyway, thanks for sharing your experience.
I can, I don't have a specific example I've used to give you in this moment. And trying to share an exact example would read like a double negative.
The general rule of thumb is only put what you want in context. If you put instructions of what not to do in context, those tokens can be misunderstood and create unintended/unwanted steering of the model.
A fair example would be testing for positive sentiment. Consider weight of tokens appended to context, phrase instructions or questions to be neutral or positive.
e.g. Some phrases and their impact:
- "Is the tone of the user message positive?" will be biased for a false positive.
- "Analyze the tone of the user message?" will be more neutral and less biased.
- "Is the tone of the message negative?" will be biased for false positives when evaluating for negative tone.
> The term references an Internet meme depicting the fallacy using Goombas, which was first posted to Twitter by @supersylvie_ on January 29, 2024.
The history of this term goes back… one year? (from a rather unpopular meme) I’m all for introducing new vocab in english but it feels like there should already be a term for this.
Funny enough, searching "goomba fallacy" in wikipedia's search yields [association fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy) and it appears to be more accurate. (Also, what I assume to be semantic search hitting that article from that search is amusing and more than a little telling.)
The population fallacy is when one infers information about an individual from the group, which wasn't done here as there is no specific individual in question. The population fallacy is seeing that some demographic likes to do a thing more than other demographics and thinking therefore any given subject in that demographic likes to do that thing.
> […] if the Sun were a ping-pong ball, […] the average distance between stars […] is analogous to one ping-pong ball every 3.2 km (2 mi).
Intuitively this visualization actually makes it seem like stars are pretty close? Usually with galactic dimensions it’s hard for our mere monkey minds to grasp the scales but this is actually pretty easy to imagine.
I’m going to try it out. My first feedback is that links in text posts (like this very post) aren’t clickable and the <a href… tags show up as plaintext (iOS). Also it’s not possible to make new lines in comments on iOS? Also I can only see the comment I’m currently typing in a single line. Otherwise, the app looks nice!
I’m surprised this is the only comment mentioning devicepixelratio. Most of the roasts from deepseek seem to involve roasting the window size but that’s misleading without DPR
I was wondering why it was showing mine wrong and why many people's resolution here was surprisingly low. TIL about DPR. Too bad that was the only good roast in my first result.
Refreshing the page gives a new one though, and it's done a pretty good job now!
