Not even a good film.

One quirk of github copilot is that because it lets you choose which model to send a question to, you can gaslight Opus into apologising for something that gpt-4o told you.

I recently had an interaction where it made a really weird comment about a function that didn’t make sense, and when I asked it to explain what it meant, it said “let me have another look at the code to see what I meant”, and made up something even more nonsensical.

It’s clear why it happened as well; when I asked it to explain itself, it had no access to its state of mind when it made the original statement; it has no memory of its own beyond the text the middleware feeds it each time. It was essentially being asked to explain what someone who wrote what it wrote, might have been thinking.

All I’m seeing there is he decided to deliberately did something wrong on behalf of an imaginary person and then complain that doing the deliberately wrong thing broke the computer.

weirdest use of that meme format to date

also the irony of 145 IQ man tripping over his own grammar

Can’t remember who it was (b3ta? popbitch? penny-arcade?), but I recently saw a comment by someone who’s been running a website since the turn of the millennium, and they said that fully 99% of the links they posted two decades ago were no longer valid.

To really put that into perspective, you have to remember that for most sites to get linked to from a popular site like that, meant that it was usually something of value that would have had a lot of work put into it, and that people found interesting or useful.

Technically should be 3.14.2, or even 3.14.16. On account of how quoting something to a limited number of significant figures works.

Sorry, I’m still stuck on what the limiting aspect of it is. “Operating on hundreds of pages that each have limited reach” costs next to nothing if it’s all automated with bots.

Either I’ve not understood your point, or you’re suggesting that spammers would limit themselves to one instance?

Spam is about volume, and a 0.1% takeup rate would be a dream for a spammer.

How does location specificity limit spam? Surely the nature of spam is it costs nothing to produce and is done en masse.

And I mean any kind of bad actor really. Spammer, scammer, or even just a griefer deciding the gum up the system for lulz.

To be clear these are genuine questions, I’m not here to shit on the project or anything. I’d love more than anything for there to be good answers to them.

I’m not here to cheerlead for eBay, but I don’t think that’s entirely true.

What mechanisms are there to limit bad actors?

They are

I’m not even trans, I just like the aesthetic and these socks help me program better

I want to see someone with too much time on their hands build a haunted typewriter, by hooking an electronic typewriter up to an LLM

Is there any evidence that he’s ever done anything to try to hide it? I’ve only ever seen that claim as an engagement-bait caption on the photo itself, to coax people into sharing it.

There’s never any details of exactly what steps he’s taken to erase it from the internet, and in fact when I searched it just now one of the top results shows that he literally retweeted the photo himself. I mean, fuck Musk and all, but also fuck clickbait.

He might be a bit short fused, but not an asshole.

He’s short fused with volunteers who are donating time to his project, which makes him an asshole.

What is that Acorn? I don’t remember the BBC having an “Acorn Bus Extension”, and it looks too narrow to be a Master…

(nm, I found it online: Acorn Atom. I’ve never seen one in real life.)

My first genie wish is for the EU to declare Windows 7 public domain and set up a team to maintain security and driver updates for it.