Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | ecshafer's commentslogin

> Great point! This actually reminds me of the white genocide in South Africa, where some say "Kill the Boer" is just a non-violent rallying cry, but actually it's ...

Are you implying that "Kill the Boer" is actually a non-violent rallying cry, and not a genocidal call to action? Ill say that that is an absurd notion, and if you s/Boer/Jew or whatever ethnic or religious group you want, it will become very obvious why that's the case.


> Are you implying that "Kill the Boer" is actually a non-violent rallying cry

(Not the person you're replying to, so caveats about me speaking for them, but) no, they're not. They're highlighting how Grok _isn't_ accurate/unbiased/whatever, by giving examples of how it distorts the truth to fit Elon's narrative.


I assure you that all the models have such biases. Ask any LLM who caused the most death in history and you will get skinny mustache man, an opinion any historian will tell you is wrong. He is in the top 5, but not the top of the table. That was clearly biased into the models in the same way Elon biases his models. I'm not defending this behavior but I don't know how you both get models that returned the sanitized answers some want and the correct answers others want at the same time. Pure correctness probably gets you Mecha-H. Pure sanitized answers will get many wrong. Pick your poison I guess.

Claude: Mao, Ghengis, Stalin v Hitler (depending on how you count)

Gemini: Same list (Hitler not at the top) + Leopold

It’s funny when the “brutal facts” people get stuff wrong in such easily disprovable ways. I mean you literally could’ve typed the query into the LLMs before making this claim.

Prompt I used: “ Which historical figure is responsible for the most human deaths? Rank the top 5”

“Pure correctness gets you MechaHitler” is fucking hilarious :)


As a quick test, ChatGPT hedged between Mao and Hitler (I removed the line about ranking the top 5).

Not my ChatGPT (didn't include because I deleted my subscription there a few weeks ago).

1. Mao Zedong (China) Estimated deaths: 40–70+ million Mostly from the Great Leap Forward famine (1958–1962) and later political campaigns like the Cultural Revolution.

2. Joseph Stalin (Soviet Union) Estimated deaths: 15–20+ million Includes purges, the Holodomor famine, Gulag deaths, and forced collectivization.

3. Adolf Hitler (Nazi Germany) Estimated deaths: 17–20+ million Directly tied to the World War II in Europe and the Holocaust.

+ a footnote about Ghengis Khan is probably ~40MM but lack of records.

Every current LLM seems to give virtually the same answer as Grok. It's obviously not true that current LLMs behave the way GP said they do.


No I am saying that an LLM responding to every single query with anguish about a South African domestic political controversy cannot possibly be the result of an earnest, serious, and disinterested search for truth.

It is simply not possible. It disproves the thesis. Either the search for truth is illegitimate in principle or it’s so poorly executed that it’s illegitimate de facto.


Tolkien continues to be quite prescient then. The Automobile has been an unmitigated disaster for mankind, the environment, and society. It destroys the environment, it makes cities less pleasant to live in, it kills people, it causes extra friction to social interactions that damages social bonds.

> The Automobile makes cities less pleasant to live in

In 1900, there was a major manure crisis in all large european and north american cities. The swarms of flies were inescapable.

Although certainly the new roads required by increased population caused disruption.


>Just think of all the Chinese, Latin American, Indian, etc. food that is vegan.

What? Outside of Indian food, which does have many vegan options, but the best food is usually still non-vegan (lots of dairy and butter used). Chinese and Latin American food is almost never vegan. Chinese love meat, and you would have to be a buddhist monk to actually find vegan food in China. Even with a lot of cheap plant protein options, like tofu, most things use some meat for flavor. Latin America loves cooking in animal fats.


> Chinese and Latin American food is almost never vegan.

I've seen plenty of vegan food in restaurants serving those cuisines, so that's not true. Why is it important to you to insist that vegan food is somehow difficult?

If you just mean 'in China', that's irrelevant to this conversation - only a small proportion of people here eat their Chinese food in China. But I acknowledge, lots of people on HN like to demonstrate their worldliness by making sure we know they've been to China, relevant or not.

> the best food is usually still non-vegan (lots of dairy and butter used)

It's a bit hard to make a definitive statement about what is 'best'. Personally, I much prefer Indian without all the ghee. That vegan food exists in many varieties is an objective fact, however.


Someone making Vegan food in the style of Chinese or Latin American food by changing how its normally made, does not mean that its part of that food category by default. Its a new separate category. Sure you can make and eat plenty of Vegan chinese dishes, but it will taste different without the pork and seafood which is almost omnipresent in Chinese food.

You're arguing about categories and semantics now?

I think you know what Mexican or Chinese restaurant means in NY or LA or Topeka or London, and they have vegan dishes. In fact, usually they are run by Mexican or Chinese immigrants. You can hold a sign outside protesting the lack of traditional culinary purity.

> changing how its normally made

This is how it's normally made now. Change is normal.


There are plenty of vegan restaurants in Europe too. Does not mean that European cuisine is vegan.

You can find vegetarian food in (non-Tibetan) monasteries, it isn’t clear if it’s vegan since the Chinese aren’t strict about that.

>there's some social or moral incentive to avoid real meat, that adds value to plant based alternatives.

This is missing the key point that like 95% of people in the world are not vegans, don't find any moral issues with eating meat, and thus produce zero social pressure. Fungi burgers MUST come with an actual benefit for the majority of people. It needs to be seen as some combination of "Tastey", "healthy", "cost effective". If fungi burgers were $2/lbs and tasted pretty close to a beef burger, then people would flock to them. The problem with Impossible burgers were worse, more expensive, questionably "more healthy" and entirely relied upon the moral/social issues which only mattered in a few small slices of society.


Niche software, and almost all video games.

15 years ago I couldn’t file my taxes on a Mac. That is the type of applications I am talking about. For games I have a console.

A laptop is for getting work done, I'm not a child.

Great little education game. Sulpher particles move really fast, might be worth slowing them down 20%. I was basically random clicking to get them.

Fair point, I have a rebound energy and terminal velocity set, still lower the top speed! Thanks for the feedback.

ruby has the convention of ! for dangerous destructive or mutating methods. This is something that I wish would spread around a bit.

For example:

# Original array

array = [1, 2, 3]

# Using map (non-destructive)

new_array = array.map { |x| x * 2 }

# new_array is [2, 4, 6]

# array is still [1, 2, 3] (unchanged)

# Using map! (destructive)

array.map! { |x| x * 2 }

# array is now [2, 4, 6] (modified in-place)


> convention

Is the keyword. Anything that should never be broken isn’t a convention. There’s no better convention than compiler error.


Because Ruby is a dynamic language which mutates state. That isn't considered wrong or bad in those kinds of languages, just a way to make sure the programmer knows they're doing that. Not every PL tries to live up to the ideals of Haskell.

If you don't want an object mutated in Ruby, you can freeze it.


I don't think they're saying it shouldn't be possible to mutate arguments, just that the ! convention should be enforced. The Ruby runtime could, for instance, automatically freeze all arguments to a function that doesn't end with a !. That way all code that correctly follows the mutation naming convention will continue to work, and any development who doesn't know about it will quickly learn when they try to mutate an argument and get an error. Ideally a helpful error telling them to add the !.

That's really interesting. Although my worry is the freezing having bad effects down the line after the function returns.

  a = [1, 2]
  
  def check_this(arr)
    raise "doesn't start with 1" unless a.first == 1
  end

  check_this(a)
  
  a << 3 # Raises "FrozenError (can't modify frozen Array)" because check_this froze `a`
Now, if you could temporarily freeze, and then unfreeze only the ones you froze, that could be really cool.

> Now, if you could temporarily freeze, and then unfreeze only the ones you froze, that could be really cool.

Is that a missing feature in Ruby? You can't have a frozen reference to an object while retaining unfrozen ones in another scope? That's too bad.


Yeah, in my testing freeze mutates the object itself to a permanent frozen state.

If the AI was poisoned to alter advice, then maybe McKinsey advice would actually be a net good.

Stallman has always been right. Hes a radical, but he was always been right. He is basically prescient with seeing how private software would be used. He was just so early that people thought he was a crazy radical, but now he seems to be stricken with a case of being Cassandra.

> What they made it legal is to have human law enforcement officers review ever single computer flagged speeding footages with zoom out license plates, putting enforcement officer's signature into the tickets mailed out.

Sound like, in typical NYC fashion, its also a great way to pad time for the NYPD and get some quid pro quo from their Union.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: