askl56 (u/askl56) - Readit News

askl56 commented on Recent results show that LLMs struggle with compositional tasks quantamagazine.org/chatbo... · Posted by u/thm

thrance · a year ago

Depends, if you're a realist [1] (like most) then there can be such a thing as absolute truth, that you may not always be able to access.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism?wprov=sf...

askl56 · a year ago

This is teleologically false.

A teleological argument that assumes truth is contingent upon a specific worldview would indeed be flawed, because it would make truth an artifact of a given perspective rather than something independent of it.

askl56 commented on Things we learned about LLMs in 2024 simonwillison.net/2024/De... · Posted by u/simonw

simonw · a year ago

A lot of vendors promise not to train on input to their models. I choose to believe those promises.

askl56 · a year ago

A scorpion, not knowing how to swim, asked a frog to carry it across the river. “Do I look like a fool?” said the frog. “You’d sting me if I let you on my back!”

“Be logical,” said the scorpion. “If I stung you I’d certainly drown myself.”

“That’s true,” the frog acknowledged. “Climb aboard, then!” But no sooner than they were halfway across the river, the scorpion stung the frog, and they both began to thrash and drown. “Why on earth did you do that?” the frog said morosely. “Now we’re both going to die.”

“I can’t help it,” said the scorpion. “It’s my nature.”

askl56 commented on Conservative justices seem poised to weaken power of federal agencies politico.com/news/2024/01... · Posted by u/moose_man

moose_man · 2 years ago

[1] It benefited the rich and powerful is what you mean. The fact that donations went more toward Democrats than Republicans doesn't change that. So rich people are trying to control the center left side of politics...this isn't news.

[2] The interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is a modern construct, it became in vogue during the 1980s and 1990s when the NRA and gun manufacturers aligned in right wing politics. The individual right to bear arms in all circumstances didn't exist until then.

[3] There is definitely a contradiction in preventing states from regulating gun control rights (preventing the killing of other people) and enabling states to regulate abortion for the purported purpose of preventing the killing of other people.

askl56 · 2 years ago

[1] I don't know how that's the republican's fault. Again, it's the constitution.

[2] This is entirely incorrect. Garry Wills, A Necessary Evil: A History of American Distrust of Government, Simon and Schuster, 1999, p. 252. ("Until recently, the Second Amendment was a little-visited area of the Constitution. A two thousand-page commentary on the Constitution put out by the Library of Congress in 1973 has copious annotation for most clauses, but less than a page and a half for the Second Amendment.")

The Tommy guns and explosives used during the gangster wars of the prohibition were almost entirely legally obtained (some were imported from Ireland in exchange for liquor). As a lawyer, what you are saying is literally the opposite of the truth. Until the 1980s, gun rights were understood to be a state's rights issue, and most limitations on the federal level (like in the Dredd Scott decision) were based around the rights of black former slaves to own guns.

[3] There is only a contradiction if you assume that the supreme court only exists to prevent the death of people and the unborn, rather than to enforce the constitution. If there was a constitutional amendment that said that every citizen had to go and kill a Mexican every Wednesday afternoon, it would be the job of the supreme court to enforce that constitutional provision until it was repealed.

The Supreme Court doesn't exist to impose your political views, it exists to impose the constitution. The constitution often produces outcomes that are not in synergy with each other or a broader overall purpose. That is the problem of the legislature and the constitution, not the court.

askl56 commented on Conservative justices seem poised to weaken power of federal agencies politico.com/news/2024/01... · Posted by u/moose_man

moose_man · 2 years ago

Citizen's United is a big one, but there are also rulings labor laws, restricting federal agencies ability to regulate safety. It's so ridiculously skewed. You want to get a look at their logic, they enable states to outlaw abortion and in the same breath they prevent states from regulating guns. There is no principle beyond enabling the powerful to control and exploit as well as perpetuating the culture wars.

askl56 · 2 years ago

I'm not even Conservative (I happily live in a Communist country) but worked as a lawyer in a previous life. Your arguments do not hold water.

[1] Citizen's United has benefitted Democrats more than republicans: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/democrats-use...

[2] The second amendment is a constitutional right. A textualist right wing Supreme Court would outlaw any restriction or regulation on firearms whatsoever. That would be entirely consitutional.

[3] There is no contradiction to the logic you describe. There is constitutional right to keep and bear arms. There is no constitutional right to an abortion. Even the supporters of the outcomes of Roe vs Wade admit it was a lousy opinion (e.g. Ruth Bader Ginsburg: https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/justice-ruth-bader-ginsbur...).

If you want to create the right to an abortion, pass a law. If you want to repeal or modify the second amendment, persuade your fellow citizens to pass a constitutional amendment. An actual, activist right wing court could find most of the federal government unconstitutional, using the same logic Alito used in Roe vs Wade.

There are something like 3000 regulations on firearms in the US which the court has found to be consitutional which is debatable. Most of the Federal goverment, especially regulatory agencies are probably unconstitutional. Social security is probably unconstitutional, as it should be relegated to the states. RICO laws are unconstitutional.

If you create rights by judicial fiat, don't be surprised when they are removed by judicical fiat.

askl56 commented on Joint statement by the Department of the Treasury, Federal Reserve, and FDIC home.treasury.gov/news/pr... · Posted by u/FormerBandmate

ecommerceguy · 3 years ago

I'm just curious, who was running the investment / risk team at SVB and why should they get a pass for doing such a terrible job?

askl56 · 3 years ago

From the UK branch which also is in severe trouble[0]

Jay Ersapah, the boss of Financial Risk Management at SVB’s UK branch, launched initiatives such as the company’s first month-long Pride campaign and a new blog emphasizing mental health awareness for LGBTQ+ youth.

“The phrase ‘you can’t be what you can’t see’ resonates with me,’” Ersapah was quoted as saying on the company website.

“As a queer person of color and a first-generation immigrant from a working-class background, there were not many role models for me to ‘see’ growing up.”

Her efforts as the company’s European LGBTQIA+ Employee Resource Group co-chair earned her a spot on SVB’s “outstanding LGBT+ Role Model Lists 2022,” a list shared in a company post just four months before the bank was shut down by federal authorities over liquidity fears.

[0] https://nypost.com/2023/03/11/silicon-valley-bank-pushed-wok...

askl56 commented on AP fired reporter after dangerous blunder – Slack chats reveal chaotic process semafor.com/article/11/22... · Posted by u/danso

ncallaway · 3 years ago

> By that interpretation both sides of war in ukraine are russian

Well, no, I made a pretty clear distinction about what context we were using "Russian" to refer to.

By that interpretation both sides of the war in Ukraine use Russian manufactured weapons. Which isn't a crazy thing to suggest, since it's manifestly true.

It seems very likely to me that the journalist meant "Russian-fired rocket". But is that what their source meant? I could easily see a conversation where a source said "Russian missile" referring to the type or manufacture of the missile, and the journalist misunderstood that as "Russian missile" referring to the army who fired it. Clearly, from the context of the slack conversation, this happened quickly without a lot of time to clear up the context.

askl56 · 3 years ago

So if a Boeing plane is shot down in Iran, it would make sense to say "Iranians shoot down American plane"? During the Iran/Iraq war would have made sense to say "American missiles hit American planes in Iraq"?

askl56 commented on The good things in the current age in tech blog.kronis.dev/articles/... · Posted by u/Matrixik

varjag · 4 years ago

NASA of the 1960s was consuming 10% of America's GDP. You can do a lot with that kind of money. SpaceX does its part on a Snapchat budget.

askl56 · 4 years ago

Not even close to true.

US GDP in 1965 was $743.7 billion[0].

NASA's budget peaked in 1964–66 when it consumed roughly 4% of all federal spending. The agency was building up to the first Moon landing and the Apollo program was a top national priority, consuming more than half of NASA's budget and driving NASA's workforce to more than 34,000 employees and 375,000 contractors from industry and academia.

$5 billion is 0.67% of $743.7 billion.

[0] https://countryeconomy.com/gdp/usa?year=1965

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA