I'm going to assume it's not actually Gacy's, and hope that it's not human.
- Posts
- 4
- Comments
- 405
- Joined
- 12 mo. ago
- Posts
- 4
- Comments
- 405
- Joined
- 12 mo. ago
And there are too many cases where that approach has failed.
How? We haven't had enough cases where it's even been tried.
It's a command line tool, used to search and filter text. According to wikipedia it stands for "global regular expression print", which I never knew til today. Essentially, you give it some input text and a regular expression, and
grepoutputs all the parts of the input that match the regular expression. For example, if I run the commandcat server_logs.log | grep ERRORon my server,grepwill print out all the lines inserver_logs.logthat have the word "ERROR", filtering out all the "WARN" and "INFO" logs.The
|character is called a pipe, and it's used to pass the output of one command line utility to another. In this example, the command line toolcatprints out the entire text of the fileserver_logs.log, and that output is then passed as an input to the next utility,grep, who filters it and outputs the filtered result. Piping is unnecessary in this case; in fact I have heard it rather upsettingly referred to as cat abuse, but that's how my fingers remember how to filter files so I thought I'd present it as I wrote it.I'll take a stab at explaining myself. I like them OK. I've never followed her or been inclined to reshare her work on social media, but I would describe crossing her work as "generally enjoyable". I think a lot of her work, like the example here, is more of a slice-of-life anecdote about an experience she had, rendered in the medium of the comic strip. It doesn't strike me as a joke, more like "Hey world, here's a thing that happened and my brief reaction to it". And I like it because I recognize the pattern and I feel sympathy for her. Nazis... overreact to things. Being extreme is kinda their signature move, and they seem to feel an obligation to be as unpleasant as possible to anyone being critical of them.
But, they almost always find other excuses to be shitty than "You criticize nazis and it hurts my feelings / makes me feel threatened, because I'm a nazi". They find the easiest excuse they can to bother you with, except the actual reason they're interacting in the first place. If they are harassing a woman, they have a standard variety pack of insults they can pull from. You're a whore, you're ugly, you're shrill or some variant thereof, you're pretending to be a lesbian because no man wants you, etc. I think the strategy is quantity over quality because nazi hatespam is remarkably consistent both in its volume and its unoriginality. It really does happen, and it is hurtful in a kind of "I can't believe humans waste their short lives being this uncreatively shitty" sorta way as well as just being generally mentally taxing, and it's nice to be able to commiserate over it. It's not exactly "ha ha" funny, but it is relatable in a way I appreciate in art.
This one is structured rather like joke, in that the last panel could be interpreted as a punchline to the previous setup, but I didn't read it that way and I don't think the idea of reading it that way would have occurred to me if I weren't analyzing it now. I can see how the last panel could be interpreted as an unfunny joke if that is what was being looked for. That's my hypothesis about why this comic is being received poorly by some, but not all, of the people in this thread. Let me know if I'm right 🙂 or wrong lol.
Block, not ban, but that sounds like exactly what you're looking for. If seeing these comics is that big a deal to you, you can block everyone who posts them and eventually you'll almost never see them. The only alternative I can think of is just putting up with seeing things you don't like, which is what I do and it seems to work pretty well. Occasionally I even start to like things I didn't like before. But based on the conversation downthread that doesn't seem like a viable path for you so I thought I'd offer an alternative.
True. Space crickets would be a significant upgrade over the silence. Some kind of astrophage-ish spaceborne organism perhaps, that sing in light to communicate with nearby colonies.
That's true, and they are cool and all, but I wish there were more.
Hard agree on the not enough aliens. There could be regions of space where as soon as you discover radio, you discover and join the interstellar community. If a region of space is dense and densely populated, maybe via a panspermia event that seeded the region, it could be that as soon as a species discovers radio waves, they become aware of the interstellar chatter, all the signals generated by all their radio-capable neighbors, engaged in a continual conversation spanning light-years and millennia. some worlds transmit introductions and translation guides at intervals, some only transmit noise or encrypted signals. Some transmit for a while and then fall silent. Most of the traffic is for intraplanetary use whose broadcast is incidental, which serves as an autobiographical record for that world, to their neighborhood. The neighborhood watches world conquering empires rise and fall from a distance. They see the worlds that talk themselves into nuclear war and then go quiet. Some resume transmitting after some time. Some individuals or groups maintain correspondences over millennia. Some of these correspondents are worshiped as gods.
Instead we get crickets. 1/10 would rather be in the galactic downtown.
How is treating one contributor fairly unfair to another contributor? If you want to add a "check this box to get your PR dumpster'd" checkbox I guess go nuts, but I'm unconvinced that's a good long-term solution. I find it easier to ask "Do I know this contributor, or did they follow the new contributor guidelines and submit a small, single-issue PR?", and if the answer is "no" then the PR gets ignored or, if I'm feeling gregarious and have the time, rejected with change requests. It's a pretty easy rubric.
Humans have been perfectly capable of generating huge volumes of trash code, and code that looks good at first glance but has tricky bugs or vulnerabilities, since long before LLMs were a thing. The only real change now is the pace at which shitty code can be ripped out. IMO the solution is just: don't accept more code than you can review and test. If that means rejecting 10x or 100x more LoC than you did five years ago, then... ok. It is more busy work, and it is annoying. But I don't think trusting contributors to self-declare LLM use is an answer to the problem. There are better ways of rate-limiting eager beavers, regardless of what tools they use.
Yep. I'm not familiar with Debian's strategy specifically, but generally, I think any new contributor to a project should be subject to heightened scrutiny. My policy is that new contributors should start small and develop a rapport with the maintainers before submitting more ambitious (and for the maintainers, more costly to review) large and/or critical path PRs. It was a good policy before LLMs and I think it remains a pretty robust method of weeding out irresponsible devs without wasting a ton of maintainer time. There are simply more slop PRs to reject sight unseen these days, which is admittedly very annoying, but the process is much the same as it's always been.
I'll admit I don't maintain any projects anywhere near the popularity or volume of the Debian project, so I'm not really sure what the view is from their vantage point.
I ain't shook up about it. There's not really a surefire way to detect tool-assisted code gen anyway, so IMO the acceptance criteria should be the same as it's always been, tool-assisted or otherwise. Which is ultimately the path they chose to take.
Time to practice my bolas throw I guess.
surveillance networks are made of computers and sensors, which are made of chips and wires. I don't think chips and wires are fascist, I don't think sensors and computers are fascist. I think the purpose to which they are put is the fascist part, and the purpose is pure human.
I wonder if it isn't at least partially a psy op. This whole business of giving anyone who even looks at an LLM a scarlet letter, and refusing to participate in any critical evaluation of LLMs or other AI tools, plays right into the hands of those who would use LLMs to pollute, isolate, and destroy the free internet. The willfully ignorant will be the easiest to trap.
If you can read this: beware the day that internet discussions of mass manipulation go quiet. That silence is the death knell of freedom.
Even if they reassign the researchers to other projects, I find it hard to believe that they just casually won a chemistry Nobel on their way to making more believable fake internet pictures. And putting aside the curing cancer of it all, why wouldn't the most conniving capitalist in the world be interested in discovering patentable drugs? It's huge business.
The torment nexus isn't a discrete thing. You can't make thumbscrews without screws. Are the screws evil? If not, when does the composition of components become evil? I don't think LLMs are evil for the same reason I don't think thumbscrews are evil in and of themselves. Thumbscrews, like LLMs, lack the capacity for evil. It's the people who turn technology against their fellow humans that I hold as my enemy, not the trappings of their mischief. Remove them from the equation, and the torment nexus becomes so much harmless scrap, ready to be beaten into plowshares.
The protein fold prediction stuff alone is huge. If we discover a cure for Alzheimer's in my lifetime, or hell, even an effective treatment of the dementia symptoms, it will probably be due in part to these tools.
Of course it's not the same. It's better because I control its inputs and outputs, and who has access to them.
Oligarch controlled tools are dangerous because of who controls them, not because the tools are intrinsically dangerous.
Whew, close one. For a few scary moments I thought this might be some kind of sick white people skulls collector.