In general, buying binds capital, more than renting.
If you include opportunity cost into the decision, then your contrast can and often will disappear (i.e. renting is financially superior or "winning" in your terminology).
Also, is this an AI comment? Because it's surely poetic about something that doesn't call for it.
> Also, is this an AI comment? Because it's surely poetic about something that doesn't call for it.
When I find these kinds of phrases to be directed my way, it is my most charitable interpretation that it is impossible for anything to be gained from the conversation.
> Individually, people prefer be kind and compassionate, prefer to help when they find another in trouble.
What are you basing that claim on?
How do you know it's an actual preference and not mainly caused by external factors (e.g. not wanting to be seen doing unkind things, wanting to be seen as upstanding)?
I don't want to do the "check his hard drives" thing, but is that you? Do you only not do things because you don't want to be seen doing "unkind things"?
Have we arrived at the conclusion that terms like "understanding" and "interpretation" for what is happening is appropriate?
Isn't it simply that there are two competing goals that the LLM received RL for, honesty on one hand (a goal that is often assumed as implicit for humans) and producing a solution that meets expectations (which doesn't technically require honesty)?
So the LLM didn't read and interpret the prompt and decide via discussion to violate ethical behavior, the unethical result merely won out because ethics wasn't a hard requirement (and one that isn't reliably detected in the result). An LLM doesn't fear punishment, so ethical behavior is simply one of many positive signals that were trained into it.
> Have we arrived at the conclusion that terms like "understanding" and "interpretation" for what is happening is appropriate?
I don't think those words have a useful enough definition to draw a strict line around them to be honest, and getting into that seems to get massively into the weeds. For me, those neatly encapsulate the behaviour as seen, to answer the questions here about what happened. The models did not seem to be confused as to what the goal was or what the intent was. They did not hack HF because they were told to.
FWIW, I had a similar impression of your comment as JohnMakin.
> give the friend a subtle clue that it's time to move on
If a friend needs someone to listen about life struggles and you tell them you're tired of it and don't want to hear it anymore, then you're not being a friend. Maybe you want to be encouraging and that is fine, probably helpful. But you immediately seem to turn that encouragement into threats of social exclusion:
> If that clue isn't heeded the friend often gets targeted 1:1 offers for help and can eventually just be shut out of the group altogether for being too negative.
I've seen this many times - people suggest "solutions" to something they don't quite understand, then get angry when people don't take their non-functional solution. Similarly, in online support groups, I've seen plenty of people storm off angrily because people are being "too negative", not seeing that sharing these feelings, wanting to be heard and knowing you're not alone with certain struggles can be part of a discovery and healing process. Those people use similar language you used in your comment of "misery loves company", essentially accusing people of wanting to be miserable and choosing depression.
If you want people to read what you write in a charitable fashion, refusing to explain the background for your comments is rather dysfunctional BTW. In general, people don't all have the same mental context and experience background to understand where you're coming from.
>If a friend needs someone to listen about life struggles and you tell them you're tired of it and don't want to hear it anymore, then you're not being a friend.
That sort of feedback is exactly why males can often feel like they have no one to go to. Even if they theoretically have "friends". They are trying to reach out and instead they are rejected from their support group. If they don't have a spouse (and why should you need to be romantically involved to want to listen out to someone's problems?) then they might feel they have no one to go to.
So now they are the perfect audience for radicalization. To be told "I understand you, it's not your fault, it's [insert target to redirect issues onto]'s fault instead. We need to correct [target] and you'll feel better!".
It could work, but those types of jobs (paying significantly more than local salary and yet fully remote in a different time zone) are few and not easy to get nowadays (not that they were ubiquitous before).
No, he says it's a different category of problem, and ability to solve one doesn't carry over to the other and it doesn't imply intelligent understanding.
You say that as if the culture difference with a truly alien intelligence is insignificant compared to the culture difference with an "overseas person".
(Even assuming "intelligent" is a sensible label to apply to an LLM holding hands with a shell script in an infinite loop)
I’m at a fully remote company with staff in at least 8 countries speaking at least 5 languages. It works out fine. A possible analogy to AI is that a lot depends on how you use it. The “skill issue” doesn’t disappear, at least not yet.
> I find brackets help me understand structure from a distance much better than whitespace.
I can't imagine how. Whitespace physically lays out the block structure on the screen; braces expect you to count and balance matching symbols, and possibly scan for them within other line noise.
Yes, and so will any reasonable text editor automatically indent to the most likely position, and remove an entire indentation level with backspace, and substitute spaces for tabs per community standards, and keep everything lined up neatly.
But GGP was making a claim about the braces themselves solving the problem, and they clearly do not. The indentation automatically inserted by your tooling solves the problem. And it's at least as easy to communicate the intended block structure with colons and backspaces as with open braces and close braces, plus it doesn't waste lines (or invite bikeshedding) for the closing braces.
Nevertheless it happens that while moving code around one wonders what indentation level that code should go. Undo, undo or git show the original code, look at it, retry more carefully.
Brackets would allow the editor to autoindent the pasted code.
Working in C# i feel basically still read code structure by the visual block structure / indentation. I dont think I've ever counted braces in my professional life. The IDE makes sure it is formatted correctly and ambiguity is basically impossible.
Exactly. So if the indentation is the actually salient thing, why not use it directly?
I mean: you don't count the braces because your tooling counts them and makes the indentation match what Python would use anyway. If you had just created that indentation in the first place (which with a proper editor is at least as easy as typing the braces; you essentially type : instead of {, and backspace instead of } ) then you'd be in the same place, except without the extra punctuation noise (well, with half of it, because GvR thought the colons were a useful signal even if redundant).
Whitespace and braces work together to make the code more readable; both by the computer and the human. And they make it less likely to have errors, because the braces convey intent (much like parens in math when they're not "needed")
It's no more 1990, when Python was born. Editors have been automatically indenting bracketed code for a long while. Probably notepad doesn't, or maybe plain vanilla vim.
If you include opportunity cost into the decision, then your contrast can and often will disappear (i.e. renting is financially superior or "winning" in your terminology).
Also, is this an AI comment? Because it's surely poetic about something that doesn't call for it.
reply