This feels a little unkind, but also functionally inaccurate.
The previous readme I posted was for an Apple Music client. It contained a download link for the client. Other Apple Music clients shared in the same way were heavily-upvoted by the community that same week.
I understand my Apple Music client had a cat DJ as a UI, and that isn't funny to some people. But it wasn't lazy. Nor was it 'performance' - it is a real thing that I put a lot of effort into that exists. And I hoped it would be a fun and novel way for the community to interact with music streaming.
Conversely, this submission is just a readme, that part is accurate. I don't maintain an active blog, so it's a simple way of hosting text.
In this case, the text is: "here is a theory, and some work I did towards it, which may or may not be interesting, but I'm unable to take it further myself. Perhaps it can spark something for someone."
Neither is performance art. I really like this forum (which is why I comment far more than post!), and both submissions are, sincerely, good-faith contributions.
From the HN comments guidelines:
Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
Don't be curmudgeonly. Thoughtful criticism is fine, but please don't be rigidly or generically negative.
Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
I genuinely appreciate the more specific feedback!
I thought I'd give it to the model to handle:
Input:
"thank you for the more substantive but negative feedback"
Output:
"thank you for the more substantive but negative feedback powerfully pretentious and unserious"
And amended by the punctuation model, which didn't do so well:
"thank you for the more substantive but negative feedback powerfully, pretentious and unserious"
I guess I should have added more examples to the doc, as - AI really is magic - it managed to capture your sentiment without even reading your message! :-)
Hard prohibition and violent enforcement is the root cause of this problem. There are no alcohol cartels, but there where when alcohol was illegal.
It drives profits and incentives for violence, and corruption. And once the money is flowing, the system reinforces itself.
Brutalizing populations, spiraling repression - all these policies can do is entrench the problem. It won't be until all drugs are legal and taxed that this problem will go away. And that won't happen because drug trafficking drives huge amounts of money that is essentially tax free.
The drug repression system exists to drive the flow of money outside the purview of the State, not because "drugs are bad hmkay". That is just propaganda. Otherwise, why would alcohol, by far the most harmful drug, be legal?
Your quotes and apostrophes are not found on a standard keyboard, so they caught my attention. Combined with the fact that you are arguing an utterly ridiculous narrative that I've only seen from Trump's inner circle and no sane person believes, I'm willing to bet this post was not made in good faith.
lol. The normalization of insanity is the root problem. Your comment proves my point.
Your comment offered nothing factual, simply your baseless subjective opinion. But sure go ahead, you keep talking and I’ll keep nodding my “thank you for proving my point” head.
But let me put it in simple terms for simple minds… if UBL was the head of one of these invasive drug cartels, the USA would be relentless in stopping him and that infection.
> it seems addictive to people (some kind of dopamine hit from deferring the need to think for yourself or something)
I think this whole thing has more to do with validation. Rigorous reasoning is hard. People found a validation machine and it released them from the need to be rigorous.
These people are not "having therapy", "developing relationships", they are fascinated by a validation engine. Hence the repositories full of woo woo physics as well, and why so many people want to believe there's something more there.
The usage of LLMs at work, in government, policing, coding, etc is so concerning because of that. They will validate whatever poor reasoning people throw at them.
How long until shareholders elect to replace those useless corporate boards and C-level executives with an LLM? I can think of multiple megacorporations that would be improved by this process, to say nothing of the hundreds of millions in cost savings.
> These people are not "having therapy", "developing relationships", they are fascinated by a validation engine. Hence the repositories full of woo woo physics as well, and why so many people want to believe there's something more there.
> The usage of LLMs at work, in government, policing, coding, etc is so concerning because of that. They will validate whatever poor reasoning people throw at them.
These machines are too useful not to exist, so we had to invent them.
> The Unaccountability Machine (2024) is a business book by Dan Davies, an investment bank analyst and author, who also writes for The New Yorker. It argues that responsibility for decision making has become diffused after World War II and represents a flaw in society.
> The book explores industrial scale decision making in markets, institutions and governments, a situation where the system serves itself by following process instead of logic. He argues that unexpected consequences, unwanted outcomes or failures emerge from "responsibility voids" that are built into underlying systems. These voids are especially visible in big complex organizations.
> Davies introduces the term “accountability sinks”, which remove the ownership or responsibility for decisions made. The sink obscures or deflects responsibility, and contributes towards a set of outcomes that appear to have been generated by a black box. Whether a rule book, best practices, or computer system, these accountability sinks "scramble feedback" and make it difficult to identify the source of mistakes and rectify them. An accountability sink breaks the links between decision makers and individuals, thus preventing feedback from being shared as a result of the system malfunction. The end result, he argues, is protocol politics, where there is no head, or accountability. Decision makers can avoid the blame for their institutional actions, while the ordinary customer, citizen or employee face the consequences of these managers poor decision making.
I've been thinking about "accountability sinks" a lot lately and how LLMs further the issue. I have never heard of this book or author prior to this comment. I'll definitely have to read it!
You're describing a list. Why do you need GPU farms to create a list?