91–100 of 188 posts
That's one good use of LLMs: fuzzy testing / attack.
Not contradicting this (I am sure it's true), but why is using an LLM for this qualitatively better than using an actual fuzzer?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> what are you hoping to get out of this comment? Rando here. It gives a signal on the account’s other comments, as well as the value of the original comment (as a hypothesis, albeit a wrong one, versus blind raging).
> "It gives a signal on the account's other comments," fair enough. i typically use karma as a rough proxy for that, especially when the user has a lot of it (like, in this case, where the poster is #17 on the leaderboard with 100,000+ karma). you dont get that much karma if you are consistently posting bad takes. > as well as the value of the original comment (as a hypothesis, albeit a wrong one, versus blind raging…
I wonder how true that is. While this site doesn't have incentivize engagement-maximizing behaviour (posting ragebait) like some other sites do, I would imagine that simply posting more is the best way to accrue karma long-term.
Anthropic feels like they are flailing around constantly trying to find something to do. A C compiler that didn't work, a browser that didn't work, and now solving bugs in Firefox.
However, the shape is there. And no one knows how good the thing is going to be after X months. We are measuring months here, not even years. I believe there is a theoretical cap about the capability of LLM. I'm wondering what does it look like.
However that don't happen unless firefox just stop developing though. New code comes with new bug, and there must be some people or some tool to find it out.
That’s a different kind of productivity but equally valuable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "It gives a signal on the account's other comments," fair enough. i typically use karma as a rough proxy for that, especially when the user has a lot of it (like, in this case, where the poster is #17 on the leaderboard with 100,000+ karma). you dont get that much karma if you are consistently posting bad takes. > as well as the value of the original comment (as a hypothesis, albeit a wrong one, versus blind raging…
> you dont get that much karma if you are consistently posting bad takes. I wonder how true that is. While this site doesn't have incentivize engagement-maximizing behaviour (posting ragebait) like some other sites do, I would imagine that simply posting more is the best way to accrue karma long-term.
i definitely agree, which is why i use it as a rough proxy rather than ground truth, but i have my doubts that you can casually "post more" your way into the top 20 karma users of all time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And now that you know that it isn't, do you feel differently about the logic you used to write this comment?
Do I?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> what are you hoping to get out of this comment? Rando here. It gives a signal on the account’s other comments, as well as the value of the original comment (as a hypothesis, albeit a wrong one, versus blind raging).
> "It gives a signal on the account's other comments," fair enough. i typically use karma as a rough proxy for that, especially when the user has a lot of it (like, in this case, where the poster is #17 on the leaderboard with 100,000+ karma). you dont get that much karma if you are consistently posting bad takes. > as well as the value of the original comment (as a hypothesis, albeit a wrong one, versus blind raging…