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

What do you think this means?

Is there a Hacker News where there's submissions and talk about AI but it's just sort of like 7 guys in Chelsea boots while one of them doing Romanian dead lifts and squats off in the corner; the audio edition of The Origins of the Second World War has been playing on a consistent loop for the past week and they burn myrrh resin?

For evidence that Bluesky is a long-term living facility operating as a social media platform...look no further than how their users employ the word "skeet" to refer to "post".

I have a Bluesky account (that I rarely use), and I had no idea they used the term "skeet".

I almost died from cringe when I hovered over the link and realized what he was talking about.

I don't think that quote helps your case or detracts from the parent. Tangentially—and perhaps counterintuitively—it can be taken as an argument in favor of the name change.

The statement also does little to address the ethical concerns at the root of the relationship between industries and the military.


They noted it but I think the important part was before then the Department of War only really existed when congress declared war. Once the war was over 95% of those people went home and back into civilian life. So even if a President wanted to start a war they had limited resources to do so unless Congress declared war and re-expanded or formed a Department of War.

Right. But somewhere in between then and now the powers of the President expanded so that "the actual exercise of military force" in the name of defense ("preserving the freedom and independence of the United States and its allies") involved fighting in wars.

This may sound ignorant but it looks like ERSC intends to situate itself as a middle ground between tools that are supported by more general purpose protocols (i.e., Tangled and apparently, eventually, Forgejo) and tools that trying to maintain the whole shebang (like Radicle).

The exception here being that ERSC also apparently intends to be less dependent on git than the others too.

If true, they have the clear advantage.


Sort of! It's not that we're against general purpose protocols, it's just that they need to be fit for purpose. For folks for whom the git protocol works for them, we're happy to support it. We just need more than that.

And yeah, we're not dependent on git-the-codebase at all.


Did you know that rivers contribute a significant portion to our atmosphere's moisture?

I found this reply very confusing... is this an atproto joke?

This seems like a worthwhile listen. As it stands I think that LLMs sort of suck at this. Either that or I don't understand what analogous thinking is or people who use LLMs to facilitate this kind of thinking are bad at it too.

But I think that LLMs are bad at something that has to do with taking seemingly disparate concepts and assimilating one into the other to convey a novel idea.

Like these articles...

<https://spectrum.ieee.org/jimi-hendrix-systems-engineer>

<https://zed.dev/blog/agentic-xanadu>

...are anything but convincing once you read past the gravitas that the LLM lends the prose.


> As it stands I think that LLMs sort of suck at this.

Metaphors are at the core of LLM cognition too via vector embeddings. The distance between embeddings is an inverse measure of their metaphorical attachment. That lets AIs scrape meaning from natural language, which demonstrates that natural language is an encoded sequence of metaphors.


I'm going to need a weekend or two to figure out what this means.

Have you played with a vector databases and have them explained yet? The grandparent comment is only explaining that concept.

Nope! But I'm soaking all of this in and I appreciate these nudges.

And after some thought I'm curious whether this means that LLMs ought to be adept at forming new metaphors as opposed to handling pre-existing ones.


> The structure of this post is a bit of a miss for me. Sorry about that. I wanted to write a short post about writing non-fiction but it turned out to be a bit longer than expected and I need to get to work now. I hope you enjoyed it.

It almost reads like the author climbed the tree to shake its branches and content himself with whatever dropped. Which in this case is fine by me.


To be honest what happened was that I tried to write a short introduction with both stories from university, they got way too long, then wrote the writing advice, and then tried to mix them both into a coherent post, then noticed the analogy of the trunk was a good anchor and remixed the article even more around that, and this is what we got. Still I enjoyed writing it.

There's always hope for a Part II. Maybe on rhetoric; which is what I interpreted "The second most important thing" to be about. But the concepts introduced there are entirely new to me so I may be off.

This is good blogging right here and sound advice for all writers on the web to follow.

But I'm a little disappointed that one of those ink blot looking circles (preferably the big one on the left) did not lead back to the home page.


OHHH THAT'S SUCH A GOOD IDEA. I'm going to add some interactivity to the circles

Yes please add an obvious method to go back to your homepage - I also attempted to click the circles to do that because there was no link or anything :) I was interested in checking out more of your writing and I had to change the URL to do that.

Your site isn't the only with this "feature" that I've seen lately, not sure what's up with this pattern.


I changed the '..' at the top with a '<-' to make it more noticeable. I also gave the dots some functionality :) thanks for the suggestion

Thank you for being able to point out and articulate these issues. LLMs have a habit of laundering pre-existing concepts per the interests (or input) of any given user.

To be fair, human scientists also frequently launder small modifications to pre-existing work as if it's completely novel.

That's why I don't trust 'em neither!

If I was someone who funded/relied on A/I's services I would have been trying to figure out what would it had taken for the US State Department to produce evidence for their allegations and would have lobbied for some sort of determination of whether the scope of A/I's involvement with said parties and their actions violated their own policies/terms of service.

Otherwise there is a way to look at this as A/I getting away scot-free for failing to administer their policies, failing to hold bad actors accountable and ultimately letting down individuals and organizations who lawfully used their services.

I'm also not surprised that A/I themselves never anticipated something like this happening and did not have some sort of protocol in place to deal with it. They had 25 years to do so.


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

Search: