> Two agents will almost never hallucinate in the same way, regardless of their weights Citation needed
That's because they're massively wealthy and have teams of lawyers, not because of AI
This is the AI equivalent of a guy selling you a course. If it worked, it would be more profitable for them to use it than to sell it.
You don't "need" to. It just achieved a culinary effect
"ability to play chess" and "ability to beat current best-in-class chess algorithms" are technically not the same thing. The second can be achieved by cheating. The first cannot.
Don't have a competitor for Astra -> we need to slow down
Right and society only works on one thing at a time
Nobody is going to tell you you can't carve your own spoons, smith your own shoes for your horses, and grow your own wheat for your own bread. Just don't blame the people who care more about eating bread than scything…
No, you're just seeing what it looks like when more people are able to make games. It's not the AI that is bad, it's the person who's not putting a lot of work in that's bad. It's just camera phones.
Absolutely not. People just lack imagination in how to use new tools in the pursuit of Eros
This means you don't enjoy making games, you enjoy coding
You don't know what AI means
You're just bad at using LLMs
It's actually a valid extension of your metaphor that introduces nuance that substantially weakens your point
No, it's like ordering a meal from door dash and saying "I got food." Using a tool does not mean you didn't do the thing you used the tool to do. You're conflating "I made X" with "I personally did every part of X with…
"You didn't build that house, your hammer did"
Using LLMs to write code is only boring if you're only trying to make the same boring things you were capable of doing when writing it by hand.
Then why wouldn't you build it with AI?
The problem is that you're not putting as much effort into building things with AI as you were by hand. If you were, it would still be satisfying
What are you trying to say? There are a ton of people who care more about being able to make something they're imagining real than engaging in the process necessary to make it happen. This applies to food just as well…
Bad example. This is analogous to people prompting an LLM to "generate code for the sake of it" which of course nobody is doing.
No you're just drawing a new arbitrary distinction
Completely arbitrary distinction. Effort is not more valuable than the results of the effort. This is a mindset that will keep you trapped.
Why do you care? If it's bad people won't buy it. If people buy it, it's only bad to you
You're creating illusory boundaries to protect your ego. AI is not a supernatural category. It's just another thing. It can serve as inspiration the way anything else can. You are not the arbiter of value in art, as…
> Two agents will almost never hallucinate in the same way, regardless of their weights Citation needed
That's because they're massively wealthy and have teams of lawyers, not because of AI
This is the AI equivalent of a guy selling you a course. If it worked, it would be more profitable for them to use it than to sell it.
You don't "need" to. It just achieved a culinary effect
"ability to play chess" and "ability to beat current best-in-class chess algorithms" are technically not the same thing. The second can be achieved by cheating. The first cannot.
Don't have a competitor for Astra -> we need to slow down
Right and society only works on one thing at a time
Nobody is going to tell you you can't carve your own spoons, smith your own shoes for your horses, and grow your own wheat for your own bread. Just don't blame the people who care more about eating bread than scything…
No, you're just seeing what it looks like when more people are able to make games. It's not the AI that is bad, it's the person who's not putting a lot of work in that's bad. It's just camera phones.
Absolutely not. People just lack imagination in how to use new tools in the pursuit of Eros
This means you don't enjoy making games, you enjoy coding
You don't know what AI means
You're just bad at using LLMs
It's actually a valid extension of your metaphor that introduces nuance that substantially weakens your point
No, it's like ordering a meal from door dash and saying "I got food." Using a tool does not mean you didn't do the thing you used the tool to do. You're conflating "I made X" with "I personally did every part of X with…
"You didn't build that house, your hammer did"
Using LLMs to write code is only boring if you're only trying to make the same boring things you were capable of doing when writing it by hand.
Then why wouldn't you build it with AI?
The problem is that you're not putting as much effort into building things with AI as you were by hand. If you were, it would still be satisfying
What are you trying to say? There are a ton of people who care more about being able to make something they're imagining real than engaging in the process necessary to make it happen. This applies to food just as well…
Bad example. This is analogous to people prompting an LLM to "generate code for the sake of it" which of course nobody is doing.
No you're just drawing a new arbitrary distinction
Completely arbitrary distinction. Effort is not more valuable than the results of the effort. This is a mindset that will keep you trapped.
Why do you care? If it's bad people won't buy it. If people buy it, it's only bad to you
You're creating illusory boundaries to protect your ego. AI is not a supernatural category. It's just another thing. It can serve as inspiration the way anything else can. You are not the arbiter of value in art, as…