Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)T

🇨🇦 tunetardis

@ tunetardis @piefed.ca

Posts
0
Comments
50
Joined
9 mo. ago

  • This reminds me of a story my dad told me. His school went on a field trip to an ice cream factory and he was, of course, expecting this to be the best day of his life. What he discovered, though, left him mortified. They were taking poor-selling flavours and running them back through the machine to change them to something better. If you buy some store brand chocolate and it has undertones of mocha, now you know why. I think of this now whenever I see a product that "may contain peanuts". Like they're not sure.

  • I sort of picture this when I see bread or tortillas marketed as high fibre even when they contain no whole grains.

  • Pokemon Go?

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump
  • I can't remember which comedian it was, but he said whenever he hears something like 4 out of 5 doctors recommend a particular medication, he wonders what that 5th doctor knows that the others don't?

  • When I first started taking climatology back in the day, I thought it a bit paradoxical that profs kept going on about how global warming would lead to more extreme weather when, on a first principles basis at least, I would've thought it should lessen weather variability. Anthropogenic warming is an insulating effect, and that should tend to even out conditions across the planet, just as insulating your home should reduce drafts and what not.

    I guess my problem was that I had it in my head that greater variability = more chance to hit extremes, and we were going the other way. But the way things are playing out, it's less variability that is giving us what we view as aberrant weather. That heat dome that never leaves or that storm system that parks itself over your head for days on end. We get too much of one thing because the weather systems are actually becoming less chaotic and getting stuck in holding patterns for longer than is healthy.

  • Aw man, not the early 90s again…

  • For instance, if an AI model could complete a one-hour task with 50% success, it only had a 25% chance of successfully completing a two-hour task. This indicates that for 99% reliability, task duration must be reduced by a factor of 70.

    This is interesting. I have noticed this myself. Generally, when an LLM boosts productivity, it shoots back a solution very quickly, and after a quick sanity check, I can accept it and move on. When it has trouble, that's something of a red flag. You might get there eventually by probing it more and more, but there is good reason for pessimism if it's taking too long.

    In the worst case scenario where you ask it a coding problem for which there is no solution—it's just not possible to do what you're asking—it may nevertheless engage you indefinitely until you eventually realize it's running you around in circles. I've wasted a whole afternoon with that nonsense.

    Anyway, I worry that companies are no longer hiring junior devs. Today's juniors are tomorrow's elites and there is going to be a talent gap in a decade that LLMs—in their current state at least—seem unlikely to fill.

  • I'm new to piefed. Could someone explain how I can subscribe to these from piefed.ca?