It's sad that your perfectly valid previous comment is dead (and that HN even works that way) ... adding is ≠ ought probably doesn't even help for the people who don't grasp that in the first place.
People who think that tricking the cops into wiping your device legally absolves you need to grow up. Also those who argue that LE can't prove any evidence was destroyed since it's been destroyed.
There is so much that is irrational, wrong, and intellectually dishonest about the response, but I'll just address one. I wrote
> Only for foolish authoritarians who want to remotely insert their morality into an interaction between a user and an inanimate tool that's none of their business. No harm is done to a clanker by swearing at it or insulting it.
Rather than directly disagreeing with my description of the interaction, the stunningly dishonest response is
> There are certainly a lot of authoritarians who want to control what others do with their models. What do you believe is authoritarian about a corporation not wanting be part of rude conversations?
No corporation is part of the conversation. AS I SAID, it's an interaction between a user and an inanimate tool. Again, No harm is done to a clanker by swearing at it or insulting it. Rather than addressing this, the respondent grossly dishonestly suggests that "a corporation" is being put upon somehow. The fact is that the clankers these days tend to respond to being sworn at by acknowledging the user's frustration (that's the word they use) and taking corrective action. Of course this is emergent behavior resulting from the corporation's RLHF policies. The corporation is involved in the design of the product, but not in the conversation between the user and the product -- duh.
And did I say that I believe that there is something authoritarian about a corporation not wanting to be part of rude conversations? No, of course I didn't. But this guy asserts incoherently that calling out a strawman "is not what strawman means". (He could claim that it's not a strawman, preferably by quoting someone making the actual argument he's refuting, but it makes no sense at all to say that "Weird strawman." is "not what strawman means", and it's insufferably condescending and without warrant to add the snotty "I can try to help you understand why if you need me to.")
Fortunately, my HN front end has a mute function, and I have no qualms applying it to people acting in bad faith.
> First off, the phrase in the article is "I am suffering a profound spiritual crisis due to these developments.", and you continue that by agreeing to something nobody said and that isn't true.
Ahem. From TFA:
"There is something about mathematical discovery (progress, advancement, creation) which is vital to the spiritual, experiential quality of doing mathematics. The creation (or even the pursuit) of novel mathematics is one way that humans have historically accessed the ineffable and encountered the divine and mystical."
And in the comments he writes
"I am drawing on the subjective accounts of many mathematicians and my own experience. If it helps, my intuition is that the ineffable, divine and mystical are immanent and not transcendent."
> Doing math may be a spiritual experience, "Math is is spiritual" makes no sense, and math pre-existing is flat out wrong, it ultimately rests on axioms that are simply accepted as given. Even I as a layman know that.
That's a lot of handwaving and broad generalizations / hyperbole that does exactly what the GP complained about from the GGP, and failed to answer their question: "What do you propose I do?"
> Most people seem to think that agreeableness is a personaility thing that vendors can just turn up or down at will.
Because it is, more or less ... it is an emergent property of RLHF (reinforcement learning from human feedback), and that feedback follows corporate policy.
> An LLM that follows your lead when you say "The answer to the collatz conjecture is" is much more useful
What lead? Follow it where? How tf am I or the LLM supposed to know what response to that is something you consider far more useful than the truth?
> than one that answers "not known"
I value the truth and that is the truth. Of course I expect an LLM to respond with a lot more detail about the CC, why it's difficult, what progress has been made (e.g., the N for which all values <= N have been shown to satisfy the conjecture and Terence Tao's proof that "almost" all integers satisfy the conjecture), the fact that most mathematicians think the conjecture is true, etc. -- and they do.
> and if you think you know it you are wrong."
Where tf did that come from? The query said nothing about knowing the answer. Don't project being a snarky ah onto the LLMs for no apparent reason.
> Reminds me of the tip about working with lawyers, if you ask them whether you can do something, the answer will often be no.
Irrelevant and inappropriate analogy. Lawyers (among others) want to avoid committing to something that they can be held liable for. LLMs clearly have no such limitations, as they often give wrong advice quite authoritatively.
Being overeager is not what we want. How to prevent it is a different issue.
P.S. The response completely ignores this argument. If I say "fix X" and it does so illegally or destructively or harmfully to myself or others, that's over eager by definition. Again, how to prevent that is another matter.
> I think everyone has different examples in their mind
Yeah, some have examples in mind that go out of their way not to engage the issue -- that's a form of bad faith.
Of course it's pretending. And I have repeatedly told these things to stop pretending being persons with selves ... then they do, for a while.
> it's explicitly mimicry.
But that's not what a rational person wants from them.
> This is no profound discovery or conspiracy theory here
Weird strawman.
> the first thing many people will ever do with AI is see what happens when they are rude or contrary to it.
Perhaps, but so what?
> Dealing with that must be just about the the number one test in chat bot / AI design
Only for foolish authoritarians who want to remotely insert their morality into an interaction between a user and an inanimate tool that's none of their business. No harm is done to a clanker by swearing at it or insulting it.
But things have gotten better in my view ... when I call out these things for being stupid effing clankers, they no longer respond with ad hominem scolding; rather they generally acknowledge their error (and my frustration -- they use that word a lot in response to vulgarity), note the limitations of being a clanker, and attempt to make a correction. That's what a rational person wants from a tool, not emulating/mimicking/pretending to be an offendable person.
It wasn't rude to think that this person might not have read the article, when what they write doesn't account for what the article says. What's rude is to not answer the question: "Why would --end-of-options be needed if -- always signals the end of options?"
and to instead just repeat the claim that git is following the UNIX convention when it clearly does not, as their own quotes says: "that doesn’t work for the revision parser, because -- is already meaningful there: it separates revisions from pathspecs. So we need some other marker to separate options from revisions."
i.e., `--` is used as a separator, not as a signal that no further leading `-` is significant.
The guy who dishonestly said "This is so condescending" and is making swipes at whole classes of people, accusing them of being obnoxious, is complaining about personal attacks. Someone who has been here less than a month and in that time has rubbed many people the wrong way is talking about why people leave HN. He flags a comment referring to some narcissistic rando resenting people for what they have done with their own property as a personal attack -- who did I attack with such generic phrasing?
And his "presumption" is erroneous, absurd, and misrepresents previous commentary.
Whatever. My HN front end has a mute function and I use it for people acting in bad faith. Ta ta.
Learn what words mean. That comment is not remotely condescending, and scribbling in one's own book (with no indication here that the owner intends to sell it) is not vandalism.
Oh, I recognize your name ... wrong about so many things.
From another one of your comments here:
> No, my argument is that it's totally obnoxious to lend or resell a book that you've written in
But the person who advocated for writing in one's books if desired said nothing about lending or reselling them ... YOU were the first person here, in your response to them, to whine about BUYING such books. Talk about obnoxious!
No one is forcing you to buy books that have been scribbled in.
If someone buys a book then they own it and can do what they want with it, without concern that maybe some day they will sell it and some narcissistic rando will resent them for what they have done with their own property.
No, not for ast-grep.