Might make more sense to just call someone a racist instead at this point

If it’s good, it’s good

“Sharing your point of view is what makes something interesting and I have yet to see AI-generated content that has a point of view”.

The problem is that readers and writers necessarily are playing an adversarial game. If you’re reading, you want to determine whether what you are reading is a waste of your time as quickly as possible. If you’re writing, you want to signal to the reader that it is worth it to keep reading. Even if what you have to say is really deep and genuine and true and someone reading the whole thing would be able to tell, a reader could see an em dash and bail in the first two seconds, and that doesn’t mean they are shallow or not worth writing for, it’s just basic self defense.

Like it or not if you are writing something you want people to read it’s not optional to consider how to get past their filters, they aren’t going to give you a second look if you fail one. IMO that doesn’t have to be a bad thing, honestly a lot of formal writing style was already just signaling of a different type; that you are educated and likely know what you are talking about, but a lot of that was always bullshit and unrelated to whether you have something worthwhile to say. At least now that AI has dragged old styles of writing through the mud, there is less incentive to waste time prettying up your words to match a standard.

although obviously they’re not going to throw ChatGPT-sized compute at it.

I’m not entirely sure whether and what more fundamental distinctions between embeddings and LLMs may exist, but smaller LLMs really struggle with comprehension if things are phrased in an unexpected way, and embeddings use comparatively very few resources. Maybe a circumvention training tool could work like this: a writing game where the goal is to produce text about a topic such that the embedding fails to associate it with that topic, but a more powerful LLM succeeds (the idea being that maybe a human would be able to tell also). The biggest advantage these systems have is probably just the way people do not get direct feedback about how their work is being interpreted.

Dig a hole and bury it, no one will ever know

Yeah but then you wouldn’t be using technology from Star Wars spinoffs

the words start grouping together automatically based on relevance just by the way the math works

Sure but isn’t it still the words that are grouping together? The guy in the OP video seems to be claiming that the fact that he used certain words does not matter, which does not make sense to me, since the depth of understanding these algorithms have of what is being said is still somewhat shallow.

I would guess that it should be possible to engineer a sentence that communicates a particular message, but is phrased in such a way that it targets a location in vector space that is not associated with that message (until the other parts of their system make that association).

I had to dig hard to find this is a SAAS sandbox offering not an actual sandbox (the software i can use locally). Its just wasting peoples time, no one needs a non opensource sandbox.

I agree with the top HN comment

Supposedly it’s really expensive and takes a long time to build new factories for the basic essential components, and nobody wants to commit to doing that because of the risk that the current spike in demand will not sustain and they will have to sell what they produce for cheap.

If there is a gap in the meantime, consumers will be incentivized to move away from hardware they can’t afford which could have long term effects on what kind of computing they are used to, ie. using less PCs, more mobile devices relying on cloud servers.

Is this from an article, what’s the source

Ok so how do you actually evade algorithmic censorship then? I assume the embedding still is based on transcribed text, so word choice should matter on some level even if it isn’t the be all end all right? The metric of other content preferences of people who prefer your content does seem harder to get around though.

Anyway here is the link to the paper the video mentions: https://concetticontrastivi.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/1369118x.2016.1154086.pdf

Try pressing the smaller numbers, the larger ones take you to the top floors

So it’s basically just a judgment call of whether someone “deserves” to avoid working, because of having had a job in the past? To me it’s basically the same if people are living the same sort of life, because those sorts of judgments are not a good way to consider a person’s identity. It’s only natural to not want a job and the main question is whether you have the means to avoid being coerced into it, people who have the means are really in the same category.

I have really long hair and another benefit of doing them separately is, it’s easiest to brush it right after applying conditioner, and harder when it has shampoo in it. So there’s that on top of really needing the conditioner to work well.

Really disturbing, it needs to end

There are really cheap drill attachments with a sharpening guide, used one for the first time the other week and it works pretty well.

began with a simple question: whether Claude had a list of banned words it could not say. Screenshots of the conversation show Claude denying such a list existed, then later producing forbidden terms after Mindgard challenged the denial using what it called a “classic elicitation tactic interrogators use.”

The list probably exists, because duh, but everyone should know by now that LLMs will make shit up when pressed for information.

What’s the difference?

I think violence is way more effective in people’s imaginations than it is in reality. Even where it is effective, the ends resemble the means in unintended ways. It inherently promotes hierarchy and control, because it’s a way of solving problems that more than any other does not require listening to or understanding the people you are dealing with.

All of that doesn’t mean violence can never be a good decision, but it’s very strongly biased towards being a bad decision, and people are much too fixated on it and sabotage their own efforts by appraising its utility too highly, especially if their goals are opposed to authoritarian dominance.

The law is against explaining how to use a VPN in certain contexts (“websites subject to the state’s age verification law”), so yeah it is selective and excludes a corporate office telling people how to access it with a VPN.

“Buy experiences, not things”

The rationale isn’t exactly wrong for the comparison, but it smuggles in an underlying assumption that it’s reasonable and normal to be spending all your available money in an effort to be happy. Money is way more useful for reinforcing your continued survival and freedom than for anything else and the idea that it’s good for regulating your emotions beyond that is a deception geared towards keeping consumer spending up.