forrcaho

I once saw a headline that someone (I forgot who) said that "AI is weird". All I could think was, well yeah, he's been called "Weird Al" all of his professional life ...

That article says they're closing for Easter, which is not an uncommon thing in the US-- for example, Costco will also do that. Nothing to do with the boycott, or "looting".

My bad, the illustration was supposed to be of Virginia Basora-Gonzalez, who has been accused of trafficking fentanyl. On the one hand, it seems encouraging that they had to find someone who could more credibly be presented as criminal -- hopefully an indication that their claims about the pro-Palestinian students and Argentinians with tattoos they've disappeared were not deemed credible enough by the general public.

Still, we only have the allegation of this administration against this person, so it's quite possible she's entirely innocent. It's not like they give a fuck about actual crimes or making our country safer. They just want to be seen as badasses.

When I worked an hourly job on the night shift, we would all clock out to change the time and then clock back in.

You got a link for that? I'm not finding anything online linking Rumeysa Ozturk to anything related to drugs

Upvoting for the concise summary of what the article is about (thanks!); not for the opinion expressed (which appears to conflate Russian developers with the actions of the Russian government -- something I find problematic at best).

You had two chances to impeach the shit and you didn't.

CLI is being able to speak a language to tell your computer what to do; GUI is only being able to point and grunt.

The original marshmallow experiment is so popular to cite because it is a "just so story" -- that is, as typically explained, it presents a moral lesson that seems intuitively obvious. That's one reason the result stood for so long without attempts to reproduce it.

Such attempts have now been made, and no one can reproduce the reported clarity of the original. One interpretation of this is related to the wealth of the families involved: the original subjects were, after all, children of Stanford University students, and as such came from families of relative wealth.

There are studies which reach the conclusion you're reporting (likely popularized by this Atlantic article but it's paywalled so I can't check), but the way you present this as a "fun fact" is turning the test into a different "just so story".

The reality is that, while there are some stats gathered from the marshmallow test and followups that could be interpreted that way, the actual data gathered is too messy and inconclusive to draw any definitive conclusions.

As far as I can tell from the article, the definition of "smarter" was left to the respondents, and "answers as if it knows many things that I don't know" is certainly a reasonable definition -- even if you understand that, technically speaking, an LLM doesn't know anything.

As an example, I used ChatGPT just now to help me compose this post, and the answer it gave me seemed pretty "smart":

what's a good word to describe the people in a poll who answer the questions? I didn't want to use "subjects" because that could get confused with the topics covered in the poll.

"Respondents" is a good choice. It clearly refers to the people answering the questions without ambiguity.

The poll is interesting for the other stats it provides, but all the snark about these people being dumber than LLMs is just silly.

Something like if (stupid_bool & 0x01) should work for those.