Nevoic
@Nevoic@lemm.ee
- Comment on Hello GPT-4o 5 months ago:
“they can’t learn anything” is too reductive. Try feeding GPT4 a language specification for a language that didn’t exist at the time of its training, and then tell it to program in that language given a library that you give it.
It won’t do well, but neither would a junior developer in raw vim/nano without compiler/linter feedback. It will roughly construct something that looks like that new language you fed it that it wasn’t trained on. This is something that in theory LLMs can do well, so GPT5/6/etc. will do better, perhaps as well as any professional human programmer.
Their context windows have increased many times over. We’re no longer operating in the 4/8k range, but instead 128k->1024k range. That’s enough context to, from the perspective of an observer, learn an entirely new language, framework, and then write something almost usable in it. And 2024 isn’t the end for context window size.
With the right tools (e.g input compiler errors and have the LLM reflect on how to fix said compiler errors), you’d get even more reliability, with just modern day LLMs. Get something more reliable, and effectively it’ll do what we can do by learning.
So much work in programming isn’t novel. You’re not making something really new, but instead piecing together work other people did. Even when you make an entirely new library, it’s using a language someone else wrote, libraries other people wrote, in an editor someone else wrote, on an O.S someone else wrote. We’re all standing on the shoulders of giants.
- Comment on Hello GPT-4o 5 months ago:
18 months ago, chatgpt didn’t exist. GPT3.5 wasn’t publicly available.
At that same point 18 months ago, iPhone 14 was available. Now we have the iPhone 15.
People are used to LLMs/AI developing much faster, but you really have to keep in perspective how different this tech was 18 months ago. LLM and smartphone plateaus is just silly at the moment.
Yes they’ve been refining the GPT4 model for about a year now, but we’ve also got major competitors in the space that didn’t exist 12 months ago. We got multimodality that didn’t exist 12 months ago. Sora is mind bogglingly realistic; didn’t exist 12 months ago.
GPT5 is just a few months away. If 4->5 is anything like 3->4, my career as a programmer will be over in the next 5 years.
- Comment on May 13, 1985 6 months ago:
Yeah, that was my point. I can’t believe I didn’t see what my own point was until you cleared it up for me. It wasn’t about how “terrorist was a loaded word” even though that’s what I said.
I’m glad you’re here to clear up the difference between what I said and what I meant, otherwise I’d be genuinely lost.
Keep it coming.
- Comment on May 13, 1985 6 months ago:
Oh wow, I didn’t get it until this message, fuck I’m an idiot. All comparisons are always fallacious. Thanks for helping me out, friend.
- Comment on May 13, 1985 6 months ago:
Yup, you can also make comparisons to irrelevant things. Not all comparisons are fallacious.
The way the CIA/IDF behave compared to other “terrorist” organizations is relevant to the etymology of the word. I don’t see how the Grand Canyon relates to any point you or I made.
- Comment on May 13, 1985 6 months ago:
Exactly. And saying “what about” isn’t always a fallacy. That’s like thinking anyone says a natural fact they’re committing a naturalistic fallacy.
- Comment on May 13, 1985 6 months ago:
Yeah no need to get this hostile.
The word “terrorist” was used, and getting into the etymology of the word is best exemplified by how large “non-terrorist” organizations operate exactly like large terrorist organizations.
- Comment on May 13, 1985 6 months ago:
Calling this whataboutism is like responding to the claim “people have a biological urge to reproduce” as a naturalistic fallacy.
You’re using the word in sorta the right ballpark (I did make a comparison, e.g a “what about”), however not every time someone says “what about X” are they committing a fallacy.
My entire point was how terrorist is a loaded word, that we only use it to describe one side (the side not in power), even though the technical definition obviously fits organizations in power.
There were native american terror groups, yet the U.S government that literally genocided millions of native Americans isn’t a terror organization, despite their use of terror and violence to achieve political goals. It’s a word with clear problematic etymology.
- Comment on May 13, 1985 6 months ago:
This misses the point. If we’re being technical, Hamas is obviously a terrorist organization. Trying to convince me that they are isn’t going to change my position, because I already believe that.
It’s just that in-so-far as Hamas/MOVE etc. are terrorist organizations, the CIA/IDF are far larger ones. They inflict terror and use violence for political gain, the only difference is they’re the ones in power so they decide who is a terrorist.
That’s the problem with the word. The IDF and Hamas are both violent terror groups that shouldn’t exist, but Hamas only exists as a result of the IDF’s genocidal campaign, and yet we only call Hamas a terror group. It’s deeply problematic.
- Comment on May 13, 1985 6 months ago:
Terrorist is just a loaded word. Like Hamas is a “terrorist organization” but the state of Israel isn’t.
Terrorism often boils down to “enacting violence against systems of oppression”. Is the IDF a terrorist organization? What about the DoD? These organizations use violence to perpetuate existing systems of oppression, causing vastly more harm than any domestic “terrorist” organization ever will.
While these 11 people were being killed by the state for being “terrorists”, the CIA was backing fascists (contras) to overthrow democratically elected socialists in Nicaragua. Is the CIA a terrorist organization?
- Comment on [deleted] 6 months ago:
I don’t think revolutions are any more likely to be fascist than socialist, historically though genuine socialist revolutions tend to lose, mostly because international capitalism can play very nicely with fascism, but not socialism.
However if the U.S underwent genuine socialist revolutions, it’s an entirely different ballgame. The U.S has been the capitalist hand on the global stage for the better part of a century, constantly involved in overthrowing democratically elected governments in favor of fascist dictatorships.
With that constant capitalistic/fascistic pressure gone, and better-yet replaced with genuine socialism, you’d get a very interesting situation. You’d have genuine socialism in the U.S (probably followed by at least some socialist revolution or socialist-inspired reforms in Europe), and then rhetorical socialism in the east, marred by material capitalism. The contradictions of the global stage would intensify, and I don’t think there’s any Chinese theory for development in an internationally socialist stage.
- Comment on [deleted] 6 months ago:
It’s more counterproductive to be a non-vegan and try to convince nobody. I’ve had a good deal of success convincing people to go vegan. There are definitely vegans that are more successful than me, but you want to know who is always less successful? Non-vegans who rage online about vegans.
- Comment on [deleted] 6 months ago:
Also I’d go as far to claim malapropisms don’t exist. There is no “incorrect” use of a word. I’m not a prescriptivist. Language is about communicating ideas, and I know everything I’ve said would make sense to a great deal of people I know.
Maybe something doesn’t make sense to you, maybe because we learned different definitions or usages of some word or phrase. Neither of us are wrong, we’ve just hit a language barrier. This is uncommon in English, but actually happens quite regularly in Europe even with two people speaking “the same language”.
Our best example of this is going from American -> British English, but it can happen within the same “dialect” too.
- Comment on [deleted] 6 months ago:
Feel free to correct me, most (or dare I say all) people aren’t born omniscient, so sometimes we misuse words or phrases. I’m not sorry to admit that I’m sometimes incorrect about things, I used to be a staunch non-vegan for example.
what state is forcing a diet on you
The dog and cat meat trade prohibition act in 2018 outlaws the slaughter and trade of dog/cat meat, in effect banning it as a diet.
I’d be more than happy with this exact same legislation being passed, but just for chickens/cows/pigs/etc. too. If you don’t think that this is prohibiting a diet, sure. Let’s just ban the slaughter/trade of cow/pig/chicken meat and say we found a good compromise.
- Comment on [deleted] 6 months ago:
It’s impressive watching you repeatedly sidestep the main point, about how your view of dogs/cats is inconsistent with your view of pigs/cows/chickens.
I’m not a moral leader, I’m making points you repeatedly sidestep with ad-hominems. You can’t articulate counter points, so you repeatedly attack me as an individual. It’s awesome.
- Comment on [deleted] 6 months ago:
The really cool thing about actually every person I’ve met or heard of online, in person, etc. is anytime they’re not vegan due to a health issue, they can’t actually say what that health issue is.
People are genuinely more open about any other aspect of their health or mental state. People more readily open up about their schizophrenia or suicidal-level depression than whatever mysterious health issue “prevents veganism”.
It’s cool too, because there is actually no medical issue that prevents veganism. Every major health association has come out and said a vegan diet is suitable for literally all people at all stages of life. That might seem reductive, until you realize how many different vegan foods there are. You’re likely able to eat beans, lettuce, and rice, and those 3 things alone have sustained poor people for decades. Living in a rich western country makes this vastly easier too.
It’s just funny hearing the broad, fake excuse because so many people use it when it’s totally incoherent by the account of every major medical association.
- Comment on [deleted] 6 months ago:
A small sidenote too about your advice, I appreciate you trying to help, but I’m actually happy with how many people I’ve converted and continue to convert to veganism. I’d even bet good money that I’ve converted more people to veganism than you.
If you find a tactic that converts more than a few dozen people per year, let me know, but I’d be out of the two of us I have more actual real world experience converting people to veganism, given I’m the vegan activist, and maybe you should consider the possibility that a vegan activist might know more about vegan activism than a non-vegan.
At least consider it as a possibility, my friend.
- Comment on [deleted] 6 months ago:
Knowledge isn’t bad, and I’m aware of where I’m knowledgeable and where my limits are. I tend to be quite a bit more knowledgeable about philosophy than the average person, most people don’t introspect or read about where truth comes from. They often don’t even know or understand what an axiom is, even though they’re foundational to how we live.
If that’s all too much for you, you can literally just disregard my latter two paragraphs before you went into your defensive panic. I don’t (usually) need to get into the idea of normative truths to justify veganism, because ironically we live in a country of “animal lovers”, many of whom would happily literally kill dog abusers. I’ve unironically met non-vegans that advocate for the fucking death penalty for people who abuse dogs.
That amount of dissonance, to advocate for actual death for humans who abuse animals, while themselves literally paying for animal abuse, is sufficient to dismantle people’s entire preconception of animal rights and worth. If we happened to live in a society without massive hypocrites, where people consistently held that abusing and torturing all “lesser” animals was okay, I’d have to get into more nuanced discussion about the nature of truth to help people get to veganism.
- Comment on [deleted] 6 months ago:
I understand this response, it must be emotionally hard to be challenged in such a concrete and decisive way, with no rational response. I see this most commonly from carnists and religious people. In politics people don’t tend to literally fall into “LALALALA” and plugging their ears like you have, but certain social conditioning (namely church and other forms of normalized structural violence) cause people to go into a defensive panic.
Good luck on learning anything in your life, honestly.
- Comment on [deleted] 6 months ago:
Dark humor is a real thing, and it’s fine and even cathartic for a lot of people. Joking about fascists, genocide-enablers, etc. is something some people find in poor taste, while others find it cathartic. Neither is wrong.
- Comment on [deleted] 6 months ago:
I didn’t force anyone to follow anything, but the state does and you view that as a good thing. It should be illegal to abuse and kill dogs & cats, we can agree on that obvious truth. Your inability to see how that translates to pigs/cows/chickens is just irrationality/stupidity, nothing else.
I’ve had a ton of conversations on the nature of normative truths, rehashing it over and over again with pseudo-expressivists online is annoying, mostly because you all have actually no background in philosophy, so it’s like talking to a bunch of philosophy 101 students who have never given this more than a cursory thought.
You should look into the basis of knowledge, study a bit of epistemology. You’ll find the foundations for all truths, normative or descriptive, are quite similar. They’re all fundamentally based in axioms.
- Comment on [deleted] 6 months ago:
Sometimes it’s just venting, looking at vegancirclejerk groups/forums. Not every comment from a vegan about veganism is an attempt at activism, sometimes we’re just fed up with carnist bullshit and vent. If a carnist sees it and it makes them think, cool, but that’s not always the goal.
- Comment on [deleted] 6 months ago:
I’ve never understood why vegans, the ones the vast majority agree are doing something at least good (even if you don’t understand it’s a moral obligation), are the ones that have to cater to the genocidal masses.
Stop and think for a second, imagine you live in a wild, wild world where the vegan position is actually correct. Imagine that you’re a vegan, and those around you are actually supporting an unjustified animal holocaust. Then think about how your critique of vegans comes off. It’s the genocidal maniacs complaining about how they’re treated unfairly on the internet because sometimes someone attacks their delicate sensibilities.
It’s not my responsibility to engage with you in such a way that makes you a better person. Your own failings are your own, and my failings are my own. My failings are I sometimes make someone on the internet a bit sad, and yours are demanding tens of billions of animal deaths every year, a quantitative level of suffering we’ve never seen before.
- Comment on Tipping culture npcs 8 months ago:
I always tip when I eat out because I agree, and this post is mistakenly directing the anger at the waiters, but tipping culture is a problem that properly developed countries don’t have to deal with.
Also, the owners do have to cover the difference to minimum wage if tips don’t get you there. Minimum wage is generally too low to live off of, but some workers get paid that anyway. If you live somewhere with a $15 an hour minimum wage, and that actually aligns with COL, then tipping culture disappearing wouldn’t be terrible.
- Comment on Tipping culture npcs 8 months ago:
Humans aren’t perfectly rational consumers, capable of always depriving themselves of joy in the name of fiscal responsibility.
I imagine the crux of your argument rests on the idea that eating out for $70 or $90 are two identical things, when in fact they are not. If you do it 10 times a year, it’s a $200 difference.
The reason that difference exists is to satisfy the desire the owning class has to not pay workers enough to survive. If they did, the capitalists would have less money, you would have more money, and the waiter would have the same amount of money.
That’s better. Not perfectly ideal, but better than now.
- Comment on here we go again 8 months ago:
Why did you link this? The Biden administration didn’t put this into action. They weren’t even major backers for this. This is far too left for their “practical moderate” image. And moderate in America is really right-leaning by any European or Asian standard.
- Comment on here we go again 8 months ago:
That’s the Biden Administration’s stance too. It’s not the rhetoric they use, but now America is drilling more oil than any other country in the world. He’s walked back on climate promises he made during his campaign.
He’ll say what he needs to to get elected, but once he’s actually in power he’s a proper capitalist.
- Comment on All workers, your attention please. Your attempt to have a decent work/life balance and be treated with dignity in this facility is going to fail. You have eight minutes to get back to the office. 9 months ago:
I had a similar experience but a different view than you. My last job has no in person requirements but we had an office for people who chose to go.
I did a couple times a week for a few months, and it was actually pleasant, because I knew the people that were there chose to be there. I would socialize with them knowing that they actively wanted to be in a space with coworkers to socialize.
Normally I’d be hesitant to strike up a conversation with someone from a different team in the office because there’s a decent chance they just want to put their head down and work because they don’t want to be there and would rather be working from home, keeping communications strictly to what’s necessary.
Sometimes I would feel less social for weeks or months and wouldn’t go into the office. It was nice to have the option to do both.
- Comment on One month after experimental pig heart transplant, doctors say they see no signs of rejection or infection 1 year ago:
If you’re not a vegan this is a super weird take. Hell, as a vegan myself, I don’t have a massive issue with trading pig lives for human lives. Yes it’d be ideal if we did it in other ways, but there’s an actually decent argument that it’s permissible and even good to save humans by killing animals.
Killing pigs because “mmm bacon” though? Yeah that’s a bad reason. Pleasure doesn’t permit suffering, most humans understand that unlees it’s their own pleasure they’re talking about.
- Comment on Disney’s Loki faces backlash over reported use of generative AI / A Loki season 2 poster has been linked to a stock image on Shutterstock that seemingly breaks the platform’s licensing rules regard... 1 year ago:
Lmfao I love how utterly simple-minded some takes are. Like no way could this clusterfuck of IP (owning thoughts), the worry of AI “taking jobs” (e.g doing work that would otherwise be done by humans), and selling of the work on a marketplace at all be tied to the idea of capitalism.
In other economic systems, having work automated would be a good thing, not an existential threat to the functioning of our entire global economy. I’m blown away that people don’t understand that simple truth.