Kane Gregory
@hobojed.bsky.social
If they don't know about a subject and are unwilling to do research, then perhaps they shouldn't be writing about it?
They then had the audacity to actually ask you to do their work for them!
They then had the audacity to actually ask you to do their work for them!
November 13, 2025 at 3:50 PM
If they don't know about a subject and are unwilling to do research, then perhaps they shouldn't be writing about it?
They then had the audacity to actually ask you to do their work for them!
They then had the audacity to actually ask you to do their work for them!
But then, so does "Zee's dead, baby. Zee's dead."
October 27, 2025 at 3:43 PM
But then, so does "Zee's dead, baby. Zee's dead."
I think a big problem with it is that Creature of Madness just does the job so much better. Reliably dropping a Dark Gift minion on turn 3 is so much better than possibly dropping one on 4
October 24, 2025 at 2:53 PM
I think a big problem with it is that Creature of Madness just does the job so much better. Reliably dropping a Dark Gift minion on turn 3 is so much better than possibly dropping one on 4
Personally, I believe that procreation is not, in and of itself, a moral concern. Although, of course, like with any action, there are secondary concerns to consider. Many pro- and anti-natalists focus their arguments on these secondary concerns, which is fine. Replacement anti-natalists do not.
October 9, 2025 at 3:02 PM
Personally, I believe that procreation is not, in and of itself, a moral concern. Although, of course, like with any action, there are secondary concerns to consider. Many pro- and anti-natalists focus their arguments on these secondary concerns, which is fine. Replacement anti-natalists do not.
Exactly! The Turing Test assumes humans are good at differentiating text with meaning from text without meaning. Our hubris told us we were, but we should have known better. The fact that humans are often fooled by cold readings and other cons should have been warning enough that we were wrong.
October 3, 2025 at 1:36 PM
Exactly! The Turing Test assumes humans are good at differentiating text with meaning from text without meaning. Our hubris told us we were, but we should have known better. The fact that humans are often fooled by cold readings and other cons should have been warning enough that we were wrong.
That's why I wait for tech to be proven. It either:
1) Gives cheap and fast productivity boosts: I can integrate and catch up quickly
2) Gives expensive or slow productivity boosts: Nobody got significantly ahead while I waited
3) Gives no productivity boost: I didn't waste time/money on it
1) Gives cheap and fast productivity boosts: I can integrate and catch up quickly
2) Gives expensive or slow productivity boosts: Nobody got significantly ahead while I waited
3) Gives no productivity boost: I didn't waste time/money on it
September 24, 2025 at 3:41 PM
That's why I wait for tech to be proven. It either:
1) Gives cheap and fast productivity boosts: I can integrate and catch up quickly
2) Gives expensive or slow productivity boosts: Nobody got significantly ahead while I waited
3) Gives no productivity boost: I didn't waste time/money on it
1) Gives cheap and fast productivity boosts: I can integrate and catch up quickly
2) Gives expensive or slow productivity boosts: Nobody got significantly ahead while I waited
3) Gives no productivity boost: I didn't waste time/money on it
Algorithmic social media streams do not work in favor of the user. Many people try to solve that with block lists, but that puts the power over your attention into someone else's hands. I prefer to just avoid algorithmic social media altogether, and use follow-only streams where possible.
September 24, 2025 at 1:59 PM
Algorithmic social media streams do not work in favor of the user. Many people try to solve that with block lists, but that puts the power over your attention into someone else's hands. I prefer to just avoid algorithmic social media altogether, and use follow-only streams where possible.
I haven't played the game in weeks now, and this balance change is not bringing me back. The game has been too stale for too long. It doesn't matter if it is balanced, if it's just the same stuff we were playing half a year ago.
September 17, 2025 at 4:40 PM
I haven't played the game in weeks now, and this balance change is not bringing me back. The game has been too stale for too long. It doesn't matter if it is balanced, if it's just the same stuff we were playing half a year ago.
I have a feeling that in 10 years, I may need to launch the Center for the Alignment of Alignment Centers for AI Alignment Centers.
September 11, 2025 at 3:41 PM
I have a feeling that in 10 years, I may need to launch the Center for the Alignment of Alignment Centers for AI Alignment Centers.
The most popular LLMs all produce sycophantic output (which is a big part of why people are becoming addicted to them), so a simple prompt like "Write a glowing review for this book" would likely be enough to pattern-match to blurbs like these.
September 9, 2025 at 2:47 PM
The most popular LLMs all produce sycophantic output (which is a big part of why people are becoming addicted to them), so a simple prompt like "Write a glowing review for this book" would likely be enough to pattern-match to blurbs like these.
I find it hard to believe they didn't know this mini set would be very low-impact, so the question is, why were they fine with that?
September 3, 2025 at 7:49 PM
I find it hard to believe they didn't know this mini set would be very low-impact, so the question is, why were they fine with that?
It's easy to block certain words, but any content moderator knows it is hard to automate blocking the discussion of specific topics. The words you block can have legitimate uses ("I'm hosting a murder mystery party...") and the topics you don't want discussed can use words you didn't think to block.
August 26, 2025 at 6:26 PM
It's easy to block certain words, but any content moderator knows it is hard to automate blocking the discussion of specific topics. The words you block can have legitimate uses ("I'm hosting a murder mystery party...") and the topics you don't want discussed can use words you didn't think to block.
This isn't just about benevolence. They couldn't make it reliably safe if they tried, because of how LLMs work. The benevolent thing to do would be to not market them as chatbots at all, and not to train them to respond with anthropomorphic language.
August 26, 2025 at 3:49 PM
This isn't just about benevolence. They couldn't make it reliably safe if they tried, because of how LLMs work. The benevolent thing to do would be to not market them as chatbots at all, and not to train them to respond with anthropomorphic language.
I would argue that they need to be carefully boxed in even if they are only attached to humans. Even simple chatbots are causing a lot of real-world problems due to the human mind being predisposed to believe their words have meaning
July 22, 2025 at 7:44 PM
I would argue that they need to be carefully boxed in even if they are only attached to humans. Even simple chatbots are causing a lot of real-world problems due to the human mind being predisposed to believe their words have meaning
Buff-wise, I'm not so sure. Yes, the quests aren't doing well, but the meta usually sucks when quests are doing well. Some could have minor adjustments to pull them up to a playable level (many are hot garbage as it stands), but they really don't need to be tier 1.
July 15, 2025 at 6:43 PM
Buff-wise, I'm not so sure. Yes, the quests aren't doing well, but the meta usually sucks when quests are doing well. Some could have minor adjustments to pull them up to a playable level (many are hot garbage as it stands), but they really don't need to be tier 1.
More than anything, I think Menagerie Jug needs a change. After that, Careless Crafter and/or Resuscitate should probably change. Otherwise, OTK Priest will dominate.
Then the obvious, but not as important, Murloc Paladin and Loh. Both need a slight tone down, but probably nothing too serious.
Then the obvious, but not as important, Murloc Paladin and Loh. Both need a slight tone down, but probably nothing too serious.
July 15, 2025 at 6:39 PM
More than anything, I think Menagerie Jug needs a change. After that, Careless Crafter and/or Resuscitate should probably change. Otherwise, OTK Priest will dominate.
Then the obvious, but not as important, Murloc Paladin and Loh. Both need a slight tone down, but probably nothing too serious.
Then the obvious, but not as important, Murloc Paladin and Loh. Both need a slight tone down, but probably nothing too serious.
I really enjoyed it. Mr. Terrific in particular was a pleasant surprise. Hopefully, there are future projects where he gets more time to shine
July 15, 2025 at 12:25 PM
I really enjoyed it. Mr. Terrific in particular was a pleasant surprise. Hopefully, there are future projects where he gets more time to shine
I remember learning about this competition when I was at University in 2001. It was a well-established event even then!
June 30, 2025 at 9:23 PM
I remember learning about this competition when I was at University in 2001. It was a well-established event even then!
Even in the case of pure memorization, LLMs do not learn the same way. If you show me a block of random words, I may exactly memorize a small number of them very fast, but I would not be able to reproduce the word frequencies in a large piece of text. The reverse is true for an LLM.
June 24, 2025 at 9:53 PM
Even in the case of pure memorization, LLMs do not learn the same way. If you show me a block of random words, I may exactly memorize a small number of them very fast, but I would not be able to reproduce the word frequencies in a large piece of text. The reverse is true for an LLM.
I want to make that comparison because the court case, which this thread is about, was about that.
The court case isn't about what LLMs may be able to do. It is specifically about how LLMs learn now.
The court case isn't about what LLMs may be able to do. It is specifically about how LLMs learn now.
June 24, 2025 at 9:22 PM
I want to make that comparison because the court case, which this thread is about, was about that.
The court case isn't about what LLMs may be able to do. It is specifically about how LLMs learn now.
The court case isn't about what LLMs may be able to do. It is specifically about how LLMs learn now.
How are any of these questions relevant to the original point, which is specifically about how humans and current LLMs respectively learn from text. I've never stated that the underlying mechanisms are different, just that the process is different (and that difference is important)
June 24, 2025 at 9:16 PM
How are any of these questions relevant to the original point, which is specifically about how humans and current LLMs respectively learn from text. I've never stated that the underlying mechanisms are different, just that the process is different (and that difference is important)
How many times are you going to change the topic of discussion. This is not about LLMs potential, this is about how they learn right now.
June 24, 2025 at 9:02 PM
How many times are you going to change the topic of discussion. This is not about LLMs potential, this is about how they learn right now.
Once again, this is not what we are talking about. The claim was that current LLMs learn the same way humans do. Whether they could be updated to do so in future is irrelevant to the fact that they currently do not do so.
June 24, 2025 at 9:00 PM
Once again, this is not what we are talking about. The claim was that current LLMs learn the same way humans do. Whether they could be updated to do so in future is irrelevant to the fact that they currently do not do so.