Open models by OpenAI • Hacker News Board

Re: Open models by OpenAI

#881

Post by FrustratedMonky » Thu, Aug 07, 2025, 3:28 PM UTC

9rx wrote: post #878

FrustratedMonky wrote: post #875

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never said anything about Republicans using chemicals to create younger adults. It was about changing the age of consent. I was saying they are arguing for a lower age to be ok. It seemed as if the argument was just around moving the age where childhood ends. Just re-contextualizing the argument. Like the argument "well she looked older" so it is ok. Kind of like middle eastern countries marry off girls at 11 or 12…

> I never said anything about Republicans using chemicals to create younger adults. You don't say? Try reading it again. > I was saying they are arguing for a lower age to be ok. We likely touched on that when we talked about people starting to reject what I called the "Teen Mom" movement. Yes, people are waking up to the fact that not having children until their geriatric years, if at all, is... not great. They are…

That you keep disagreeing, made me doubt, maybe I am using the word wrong. So I looked it up.

You are technically correct. If Trump was sleeping with 14 year old, and the cutoff for Pedophilia is 13. Then, guess he is in the clear. And Gaetz, paid for sex with 17 year old. So guess again, you could argue 17 is "old enough to play ball".

Guess I was wrong. 14-18 is ok for Republicans.

I'd say the Church steers younger, but I'm sure you can look that up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

"Although girls typically begin the process of puberty at age 10 or 11, and boys at age 11 or 12,[3] psychiatric diagnostic criteria for pedophilia extend the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13"

Re: Open models by OpenAI

#882

Post by 9rx » Thu, Aug 07, 2025, 4:14 PM UTC

FrustratedMonky wrote: post #881

9rx wrote: post #878

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I never said anything about Republicans using chemicals to create younger adults. You don't say? Try reading it again. > I was saying they are arguing for a lower age to be ok. We likely touched on that when we talked about people starting to reject what I called the "Teen Mom" movement. Yes, people are waking up to the fact that not having children until their geriatric years, if at all, is... not great. They are…

That you keep disagreeing, made me doubt, maybe I am using the word wrong. So I looked it up. You are technically correct. If Trump was sleeping with 14 year old, and the cutoff for Pedophilia is 13. Then, guess he is in the clear. And Gaetz, paid for sex with 17 year old. So guess again, you could argue 17 is "old enough to play ball". Guess I was wrong. 14-18 is ok for Republicans. I'd say the Church steers younger…

> the cutoff for Pedophilia is 13.

The "cutoff" is normally considered to be puberty. At puberty the human form starts to change, which is what we consider significant. That doesn't magically happen on your 13th birthday. Not having reached puberty by the age of 13 would be statistically unusual, though. I guess that is what you mean?

But, sure, pedophilia might even apply to a 14 year old in some extreme cases. Regardless, it is quite apparent that Trump's ilk like those who at least show some "development". If they are closeted pedophiles, they have certainly done well to keep that from the limelight.

> Guess I was wrong.

Arbitrarily defining a word doesn't make you wrong. All words are ultimately randomly made up on the spot. That is how natural language works. However, the behaviour that followed was, let's say... interesting. I specifically asked in the very first sentence if you meant ephebophilia to clarify your intent. Rationally, that is where one would say: "Oh yes, that is what I am talking about", "I define pedophilia as...", or at very least "I am not familiar with ephebophilia. What is that?" so that we could converge on a shared understanding. Instead, we got a wild train ride to nowhere, only now finally getting an answer to the original question.

But, hey, you do you.

Re: Open models by OpenAI

#883

Post by FrustratedMonky » Thu, Aug 07, 2025, 6:17 PM UTC

9rx wrote: post #882

FrustratedMonky wrote: post #881

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That you keep disagreeing, made me doubt, maybe I am using the word wrong. So I looked it up. You are technically correct. If Trump was sleeping with 14 year old, and the cutoff for Pedophilia is 13. Then, guess he is in the clear. And Gaetz, paid for sex with 17 year old. So guess again, you could argue 17 is "old enough to play ball". Guess I was wrong. 14-18 is ok for Republicans. I'd say the Church steers younger…

> the cutoff for Pedophilia is 13. The "cutoff" is normally considered to be puberty. At puberty the human form starts to change, which is what we consider significant. That doesn't magically happen on your 13th birthday. Not having reached puberty by the age of 13 would be statistically unusual, though. I guess that is what you mean? But, sure, pedophilia might even apply to a 14 year old in some extreme cases. Rega…

It seemed like you were questioning the definition of pedophilia, so I literally gave you a definition with a link. Republican arguments do typically include wanting to lower the age to match up with puberty. But that seems like a pretty unseemly argument. If Trump was having sex with 14 year olds, but they were 'developed', so it is not technically pedophilia, so can't call him a pedophile. Is a pretty weak argument.

I mean, isn't it a pretty common joke that pedophiles like to argue this point:

"hmm, indubitably, my good sir, it is actually ephebophilia, completely different, totally ok. A common mistake I often have to explain to my 14 year old's girlfriends parents that keep calling the police on me. Why just look at her, very developed, very mature, not a child at all".

But have to agree. Not sure what you are trying to say at this point, or what is the argument?

Re: Open models by OpenAI

#884

Post by FrustratedMonky » Thu, Aug 07, 2025, 6:22 PM UTC

9rx wrote: post #879

FrustratedMonky wrote: post #877

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok. If you go back to original. I was bit sarcastic. So a sarcastic question, is probably not taken as a real question. Like when hearing something out of left field, I think the reply can also be extreme, like saying 'Wuuut????, are you real?". I do see claims that the Democrats are at fault for us having Trump. Thus anything that happens now is really a knock on effect of Democrats not beating him, so we blame Demo…

> I do see claims that the Democrats are at fault for us having Trump. If you mean your own comments, yes, I saw that too. Your invented blame made about as much sense as blaming a butterfly who flapped his wings in Africa, but I understand that you were ultimately joking around. Of course, the same holds true for all other comments you supposedly keep seeing. You are not the only one on this earth who dabbles in sar…

It wasn't you, but I was responding to this

>"It's the White House that wanted Trump to be candidate. They played Republican primary voters like a fiddle by launching a barrage of transparently political prosecutions just as Republican primaries were starting."

This really did sound like it " suggest political astuteness"

And, so all the way back, I responded sarcastically. If Democrats could 'Play Republicans like a fiddle", because they wanted Trump to win the primary. Then what happened? Where did all that 'astuteness' go.

Re: Open models by OpenAI

#885

Post by 9rx » Thu, Aug 07, 2025, 6:42 PM UTC

FrustratedMonky wrote: post #883

9rx wrote: post #882

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the cutoff for Pedophilia is 13. The "cutoff" is normally considered to be puberty. At puberty the human form starts to change, which is what we consider significant. That doesn't magically happen on your 13th birthday. Not having reached puberty by the age of 13 would be statistically unusual, though. I guess that is what you mean? But, sure, pedophilia might even apply to a 14 year old in some extreme cases. Rega…

It seemed like you were questioning the definition of pedophilia, so I literally gave you a definition with a link. Republican arguments do typically include wanting to lower the age to match up with puberty. But that seems like a pretty unseemly argument. If Trump was having sex with 14 year olds, but they were 'developed', so it is not technically pedophilia, so can't call him a pedophile. Is a pretty weak argument…

> or what is the argument?

What argument are you talking about? As I said before, I am trying to understand you. For some reason you continually speak in weird logically fallacies and made up stories that don't make any sense, even though you seem to have genuine intent and are trying to add positive contributions. In the interest of good faith, it is worth trying to figure out what you actually mean.

Yes, you eventually delivered the necessary clarification that allows us to better understand what you were trying to say, but what the hell was that in between?

Re: Open models by OpenAI

#886

Post by 9rx » Thu, Aug 07, 2025, 7:18 PM UTC

FrustratedMonky wrote: post #884

9rx wrote: post #879

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I do see claims that the Democrats are at fault for us having Trump. If you mean your own comments, yes, I saw that too. Your invented blame made about as much sense as blaming a butterfly who flapped his wings in Africa, but I understand that you were ultimately joking around. Of course, the same holds true for all other comments you supposedly keep seeing. You are not the only one on this earth who dabbles in sar…

It wasn't you, but I was responding to this >"It's the White House that wanted Trump to be candidate. They played Republican primary voters like a fiddle by launching a barrage of transparently political prosecutions just as Republican primaries were starting." This really did sound like it " suggest political astuteness" And, so all the way back, I responded sarcastically. If Democrats could 'Play Republicans like a…

I don't know what you think "play like a fiddle" means, but in common usage it generally implies that the one being played is gullible.

1. What suggests that astuteness is required to "trick" the gullible? Especially when we are only talking about a single instance of ostensible "success", not even demonstration of repeatability. Dumb luck remains just as likely of an explanation.

2. Under the assumption of easy manipulation as the phrase has been taken to mean, why do you find it unlikely that Trump couldn't have also "tricked" them?

In fact, if we buy into the original comment's premise, the Democrats not recognizing that Trump could just as easily "play them like a fiddle" suggests the exact opposite of being astute from my vantage point. But the view from my vantage point cannot be logically projected onto the original comment. It remains that the original comment gave no such indication either way. Where do you hear this "sound" that you speak of?

Re: Open models by OpenAI

#887

Post by twixfel » Thu, Aug 07, 2025, 7:25 PM UTC

turnsout wrote: post #790

twixfel wrote: post #660

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also, just wanted to credit you for being one of the five people on Earth who knows the correct spelling of "lede." Not in the UK it isn’t.

Yes, it is, although it's primarily a US journalistic convention. "Lede" is a publishing industry word referring to the most important leading detail of a story. It's spelled intentionally "incorrectly" to disambiguate it from the metal lead, which was used in typesetting at the time.

No, it isn't. It's an American thing at most and possibly also a false etymology. Its prime usage appears to be for people in HN threads to pat each other on the back for knowing it's "real" spelling.

Re: Open models by OpenAI

#888

Post by semitones » Thu, Aug 07, 2025, 7:44 PM UTC

deviation wrote: post #13

So this confirms a best-in-class model release within the next few days? From a strategic perspective, I can't think of any reason they'd release this unless they were about to announce something which totally eclipses it?

You hit the nail on the head!!!

Re: Open models by OpenAI

#889

Post by FrustratedMonky » Thu, Aug 07, 2025, 8:03 PM UTC

9rx wrote: post #885

FrustratedMonky wrote: post #883

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seemed like you were questioning the definition of pedophilia, so I literally gave you a definition with a link. Republican arguments do typically include wanting to lower the age to match up with puberty. But that seems like a pretty unseemly argument. If Trump was having sex with 14 year olds, but they were 'developed', so it is not technically pedophilia, so can't call him a pedophile. Is a pretty weak argument…

> or what is the argument? What argument are you talking about? As I said before, I am trying to understand you. For some reason you continually speak in weird logically fallacies and made up stories that don't make any sense, even though you seem to have genuine intent and are trying to add positive contributions. In the interest of good faith, it is worth trying to figure out what you actually mean. Yes, you eventu…

If you really want to disect where things got off track. I think it was here.

My original comment >>>

"I was just referring to the predominant number of cases where Church officials, and Republicans are caught in under-age scandals. It seems like it is coming out of the shadows now, and Republicans are just openly going with it, they like em young and illegal. Epstein is just the case where the 'right' bothered keeping up tabs on it, so now they are clutching their pearls."

I think is in line with my most recent comment. I think the direction is clear.

When you replied with this >>>

"But even that is characterized by the "choir boy", not the "baby being baptized". Where is this pedophilia idea coming from?"

I was lost on what was being asked. I didn't understand the choir boy reference, or why pedophilia was a question, since it seemed my point was pretty pointed.

Re: Open models by OpenAI

#890

Post by FrustratedMonky » Thu, Aug 07, 2025, 8:08 PM UTC

9rx wrote: post #886

FrustratedMonky wrote: post #884

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wasn't you, but I was responding to this >"It's the White House that wanted Trump to be candidate. They played Republican primary voters like a fiddle by launching a barrage of transparently political prosecutions just as Republican primaries were starting." This really did sound like it " suggest political astuteness" And, so all the way back, I responded sarcastically. If Democrats could 'Play Republicans like a…

I don't know what you think "play like a fiddle" means, but in common usage it generally implies that the one being played is gullible. 1. What suggests that astuteness is required to "trick" the gullible? Especially when we are only talking about a single instance of ostensible "success", not even demonstration of repeatability. Dumb luck remains just as likely of an explanation. 2. Under the assumption of easy mani…

I can't argue with any of that, since technically everyone could have been playing everyone else. Maybe Republicans are easily fooled, or maybe Trump is playing 5-d chess and playing both sides.

I just think 'playing like a fiddle' typically means a lopsided power dynamic where one person has much more knowledge, or skill. So I'd assume it was implying Democrats were in a superior position. Not, that Democrats just got lucky once. This going back and forth pointing fingers about who was playing , seems like too many layers deep.

it feels like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMz7JBRbmNo