Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | thinking_cactus's commentslogin

I wonder the flipside as well. I'm extremely confident a healthy vegeterian or vegan diet will be generally a bit healthier than a meat-heavy alternative. But I believe you can overdo it too, like if you eat enormous amounts of hard raw foods and leaves with low calories that might not be all that great for your gut either? (our gut is probably adapted to eating cooked stuff).

My armchair recommendation: avoid processed foods (but you can have processed if you're really confident what goes in isn't harmful or just very occasional I guess), eat a good amount of salads and veggies alongside some cooked main course, like beans, rice, tofu, etc.. Eat some fruits throughout the day, and a reasonable amount of water. Chew your foods well. Exercise, bla bla bla, you know the drill ;)


I kind of agree. When nothing's Libre, naming your project Libre<something> is fine, I believe. But imagine OSS succeeds, and everything is named Libre<something>. Then that's terrible.

"Did you open libreterminal and use librels and libreget to download librebrowser to open libresearch?"

It lacks identity (just a little bit is fine) and distinctiveness, imo.


I agree in some ways.

Like, I think in a way it's just not viable to patch every little loophole a corrupt or morally bankrupt administration could exploit and all damage it could cause, and probably not without making the administration itself useless. It's a still a good idea to patch as much as feasible, in part to if slightly discourage the worse from seeking power in the first place. But in a way, it's garbage in, garbage out. Laws will never be able to magically turn corrupt and misguided decisions into ever good ones. The robust solution is promoting wisdom, ethics, civility and education, so people make good democratic choices for themselves and others.


> If no one works on defence systems then all the things we have could become jeopardized, perhaps not this week but in 5 years. Therefore I can reconcile the idea of working for defence related r&d.

I am not saying this line of thinking is completely absurd. But I think every individual considering this should reflect a lot. (1) Is your country using its ""defense"" systems wisely? (2) Won't the technology be replicated by adversaries anyways? (3) etc..

Overall, the number of people and resources spent on Weapons R&D is probably significantly more than people working on things like diplomacy, ethics, or activism for international human rights (assuming human rights violations are the only legitimate reason for war).

It's significantly safer for individual nations and humanity as a whole if we're not all armed to the teeth constantly on the brink of large conflict, and instead are more or less ethically aligned, all respect basic human rights, and respect other nations.


I think that there is a difference between wishful thinking about how things should be versus preparing based on how things are.

Also diplomacy doesn't have a great track record for the past 100 years.



Can an MRI catch it? It would be ideal if the cost of MRIs came down so everyone could access it. Where's Moore's law for ~tricoders~ MRIs?


The architectural version is interesting to me. There's really a world of difference, but you need to know some history and some of the "cultural vibes" particular to each country to understand.


I get why it is romantic (like the "next thing" after other human discoveries), but I don't think "exploring the universe" is that philosophically interesting?

Think about the case you had

(1) A completely environmentally-resistant suit (so you can stand on the surface of basically any planet)

(2) A teleporter to take you absolutely anywhere instantly

Still in this case, you'd probably spend a while visiting new planets, but eventually it would be kind of an exercise in geology. There would surely be some amazing sights like huge canyons and whatnot. But I can't help but think it would be eventually boring without human culture (or all sorts of life) surrounding it.

I think literally exploring art and culture (including games, sports and intellectual pursuits, science, etc.) is much more interesting than exploring the universe, it's a shame this isn't as culturally recognized (so we didn't have to be so obsessed with having more and more stuff to go somewhere that isn't just right here on Earth).

Even if you brought human life and culture there, which is surely nice and perhaps noble (depending on how you do it of course), that simply creates a new place that's analogous to Earth itself.

Kind of a hint of an insatiable cosmos-devouring demon that must conquer everywhere but can never enjoy the comfort of his own home. (not accusing you in particular of this, just painting a poetic picture :P)

I'm really excited about conquering hunger, poverty and curing severe mental illness, as a counterpoint.


>I'm really excited about conquering hunger, poverty and curing severe mental illness, as a counterpoint.

Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to interest anyone with money and political influence.


> They literally only understand text

I don't see why only understanding text is completely associated with 'schastic-parrot'-ness. There are blind-deaf people around (mostly interacting through reading braille I think) which are definitely not stochastic parrots.

Moreover, they do have a little bit of Reinforcement Learning on top of reproducing their training corpus.

I believe there has to be some even if very primitive form of thinking (and something like creativity even) even to do the usual (non-RL, supervised) LLMs job of text continuation.

The most problematic thing is humans tend to abhor middle grounds. Either it thinks or it doesn't. Either it's an unthinking dead machine, a s.p., or human-like AGI. The reality is probably in between (maybe still more on the side of s.p. s, definitely with some genuine intelligence, but with some unknown, probably small, sentience as of yet). Reminder that sentience and not intelligence is what should give it rights.


Because blind-deaf people interact with the world directly. LLMs do not, cannot, and have never seen the actual world. A better analogy would be a blind-deaf person born in Plato's Cave, reading text all day. They have no idea why these things were written, or what they actually represent.


> what the hell does “the rhythm of attention is the rhythm of life” even mean?

Might be a reference to the attention mechanism (a key part of LLMs). Basically for LLMs, computing tokes is their life, the rhythm of life. It makes sense to me at least.


It shouldn’t make sense to you, because it’s meaningless slop. Exercise some discernment.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: