Wealthy pedophiles

Pedophiles when they take over the government: “everywhere you go, we will be watching you”

And are your tests abstracted as much as possible? Ie Are you decorating methods to describe the acceptable range and domain and have a hypothesis engine test for that? Are you using snapshot testing to make things easier to trace? I can go on but I don’t know the context nor do I think we should really sync on the specifics of your job. The point is you are at a point where you think the code can’t be made simpler, maybe that is true, but if AI is doing all the boring stuff then I don’t know how one would even care to know.

The key is not to reason with it but to give it “signals” that it will take as gospel. Like “cache is a persistent and common issue” and “test verification is meant to be done in a Windows VM”

Innovating the boring stuff is how you do your job better. AI doesn’t do that for you.

A million dollars would be 10 teachers at 6 figures, could have been 5 thousand teachers for a year.

Are we suppose to mix it with something that turns it into what exactly?

I guess it’s like describing color to a blind man. I am telling you that others experience books in a much deeper and profound way but you are unable to relate and unable see the point that is being made. So you as a person blind to this will either have to trust other people have vision you lack or insist we are all blind.

You can lower the bar for what you consider intelligent, but that doesn’t make the LLM any more capable.

And no, I am not talking about emotions in regards to reading a book. Do you simply experience a book as a set of words and emotions attached to those words? I think you are selling yourself short in order to put LLMs on a pedestal.

I meant LLMs and people experience reading a book differently in the internal sense. Or at least for some people.

That “intelligence” will tell you how it is not as intelligent if you ask directly. This is not because it’s intelligent and KNOWS it’s limitations but because it picked up on my signal for what I wanted and gave something resembling that to me. You could ask it the opposite thing and arrive at a very different conclusion. https://claude.ai/share/97859aae-beb2-4245-a8b1-460122ee4aa1

I would even say the analogies it gave aren’t entirely accurate. A person reading a book experiences it very differently than an LLM. And this is a key insight to an element of the Turing test where you ask it to explain some poetry (not simply write a poem).

I meant signal manipulation, but sure, that includes manipulating humans since we are just another signal input. That isn’t a statement on values, just an objective description of how it works.

If we crowd source a rocket i am told they don’t ask questions when we offer them a seat. Oh wait, that was just another lie. I guess a guillotine would be more cost effective than a rocket…

Because signal matching and manipulation is not intelligence unless you’re willing to admit that is all you are capable of.

It’s impressive until it isn’t because it decided to “fix” an issue by simply ignoring an exception.

We ReSpEcT yOuR dEcIsIoN

• a bot incapable of value judgements

I told you before, I am not interested in debating values. Questioning my own values or misrepresenting my own position is not going to goad me into debating you. It only gives me more evidence that such an effort would be futile in regards to facts and the truth. Take this as a lesson in how to engage serious people in the future. That is how you “maximize” the value of this interaction.

He really is drinking his own cool aide.

If my opinion is of no consequence then let us both find a more meaningful endeavor

Bdsm…