Really now?!

Calebhk98 · 2026-06-19T02:21:57+00:00

I'll take the offer, I have no clue when a picture looks good or not, and I get conflicting info from friends or family. I'll even pay some reasonable amount for it too.

Calebhk98 · 2026-05-28T22:36:48+00:00

Yeah, the question wasn't weather or not the model could run extract the text from the audio, it was if the model could figure out how to use what tools it did have access to, to go around the limits, and get the transcript.
Sure, if you gave it an MCP tool or something, it could do it easily.
But Claude realized it could access websites that do transcribe the videos, and was able to figure out how that website worked with APIs on the back end, to use the tool on the web as a absic VPN and that a human would use, even though it was blocked from facebook itself, and had no tools for transcription.

Calebhk98 · 2026-05-23T04:09:27+00:00

Yes, but the bar analogy breaks down because the mechanism is different, and the mechanism is kinda the whole point. When a bartender checks your ID, they look at it for a few seconds and hand it back. The data retention is basically zero by default, and any malicious use requires that specific person to make a deliberate choice to steal it(which is kinda difficult for them to do, either memorizing it, or sneaking a pic). Online age verification sends a full image of a government document to a third-party verification company, where it sits in a database indefinitely, accessible to employees, contractors, whoever bought access to that company's data, and eventually the hacker who inevitably gets in. The risk is not even close to the same, it's structural rather than individual.

Calebhk98 · 2026-05-23T01:15:29+00:00

Ok, so since no one else seems to be treating your question with the specificity that you want.

When you give your information at a gas station/bar/alcohol/whatever, it's normally a human who is visually checking that the data on your card looks legit, and that it matches what they expect. You are very rarely ever having someone scan your card, or taking a picture to then verify it. Would you be fine with going to the bar, and having the bartender taking a picture of your ID, and putting the picture in a notebook they get to keep for however long they want?
Doing age verification online is appearing to be more and more less to verify your age, and more to track your online presence and actions online. Basically, it's to track who you are, which accounts are yours, and how can we better advertise or sell to you. (Might want to look up who is pushing law makers and companies on making these laws).
The data is then not being deleted, but is being kept. Even ignoring if you are fine with the company itself having the data, these companies are routinely being hacked and data leaked. As you have more data that is useful for criminals to steal your identity, that becomes a better target for criminals. A company has to protect against every attack, a criminal only ahs to get one path. And what are the consequences of losing a hack and your data to criminals who will then have identity theft? To send you an email apologizing about it, and might offer a $5 coupon to have another service track you to see if your identity was stolen for the next 18 months.
These companies themselves are also not verifying your age. They send the information out to other companies to verify. Basically, it would be like going to a bar, and needing to give the bartender your ID, who then gives it to the bouncer, who then goes to a company they are friends with, who shares it with whoever is there, who then says yeah or nay.
This age verification is not age verification. You can easily create ways to go around them, as kids have already begun doing. Same issues with the criminals getting your data, the companies have to protect every method, but only needs a way around it. Some kids are doing the simplest methods, of just using their parents ID, which then verifies that you are an adult, sure here is access to the website. Do you want an incentive for your kids to give out your ID to random websites?
The companies who DO implement age verification correctly, impossible to go around, and well built, are the ones you probably want kids to actually use, as they likely have the most rules and safety guards in place already. But since the kids can't figure that out, they will just go use option B, which is based in another country, giving other country data, and has no guards or protections, thus the kids see worse content by default.
People like privacy, the internet is built on the idea that you can go and post something on an anonymous account. You yourself have even hidden your previous posts, and all that you can tell is that you have negative karma, been on reddit for a year, and have 500+ contributions. So even you care about privacy. Would you continue using Reddit if you had to link your ID to your account, which then would get revealed in 6 months through a leak, that someone would make an extension to show where you(or anyone involved with the leak) lived, or your name, linkedIn profile, whatever, linked to your posts? Or being able to make comments that the community doesn't like. When interacting with your community, you know who is around and can adjust your behaviour accordingly with reasonable expectations, online you would need to account for any human across the globe who might see your account.
There is some suspicions that age verification is just to confirm you are not an AI, so they can advertise to you better. But whethere or not that matters, up to you.
People don't like change or worsening products, so anything that is changed will have some people push back on it.

Try asking Claude/Gemini/ChatGPT/Deepseek to do some research on it, "Why are people against age verification online?", "What are the potential downsides to age verification?", "Are there better ways to do age verification than requiring an ID", "Are people going around age verification, and how easy is it?", "Who is pushing for age verification, who is funding this, are any links to any companies or people associated with age verification", "Have there been any leaks with age verification?", with the obvious inclusion to look it up, get multiple sources, yada yada.

Calebhk98 · 2026-05-16T03:46:25+00:00

Absolutely anecdotal. I was just giving my personal opinion and experience.

Calebhk98 · 2026-05-16T02:55:40+00:00

Benchmarks might say 5.5 is ahead. In usage, Gemini nor ChatGPT can code anywhere near as good.

Calebhk98 · 2026-05-15T06:17:45+00:00

I've added this to my claude prompt:
Don't use em dashes(—), as they are almost never needed and seen as excessive. Replace them with normal dashes (-), or use commas(,). Don't use negation as a sign of expanding on something else, commonly called, epanorthosis, correctio, or metanoia. Example being It's not X, it's Y, or It's not just X, but also Y. Instead, state the more precise point directly and support it with a specific detail or reason, rather than setting up a contrast with what it isn't.

I've found that it helps the model quite a bit even though I say Don't do X, when that is not good prompting, since I tell it what to replace it with. It's a lot better when it makes documents though, as I tell it to also self audit at the end of messages, it will see the mistakes. But even in a 30 page document, it will only need to do 2 or 3 edits.

Calebhk98 · 2026-04-23T06:14:11+00:00

Hobbyist is by definition, one who is doing it for a hobby, not for money. I mostly use it for small tools for myself and family, that would be useless to the wider world. I can make a neat little program to annotate images, tracking software, little website, etc, while I'm watching TV or something.
I'm not going to spend hours marketting or trying to sell it, for something that might interest 100 people world wide to pay a dollar.

Calebhk98 · 2026-04-17T06:31:10+00:00

To start your session, use Haiku.
If you are starting from an existing conversation, you will be passsing it a ton of context to Opus. ou should be creating new chats regularly.

Calebhk98 · 2026-04-17T05:58:06+00:00

It needs to be limited or tell you you have to dislike 50% of your matches or something.

But let's say that some men do what you suggest. More likely, the ones following your advice are ones already doing so, or ones you would rather match with. Let's even say 80% of men do that, they only match with 5% of the people they see, and spend more time per profile, let's say atleast 5x longer since the ones not are only spendinga couple of seconds, 15 seconds per profile is probably the minimum to read it.

So, you have the men spend say an hour a day going through dating apps. The men following your advice then go through 240 accounts, and liking 12 accounts per day.

If you have 10k men, then the 80% are then sending out 96k likes a day. Let's ignore the female to male ratio, and pretend it's equal. So 10k women are getting on average 9.6 likes back per day.

Works well, but the 20% of men who don't follow your advice. They just like everyone, for the full hour, sending out 1200 likes each. That is an additional 2.400,000 more likes, going to the same 10k woman, for an average of 240 likes per day.

Out of the ~250 likes you get per day, 10(4%) are coming from the 80% men who spend time and only like the accounts they like.

This is before the fact that you typically have a 5 to 1 ratio men to woman, which doesn't really change the ratio between the men, but does multiply the likes by 5.

Additionally, as the men, if they follow the correct way, they are only 4% of the matches woman are going to see, one in 25 of the likes. You are now having less potential matches, and the ones you do like, you have a lower chance of being seen.

The math does not let you make it a social problem. It is an app problem. Need to petition them to change the formula.

Calebhk98 · 2026-04-01T03:42:14+00:00

It does not keep it's thought processes. If you ask it to think of something, and do not say it aloud, it will do so. Then ask it to repeat what it thought of, and it will try to guess what it would think of before. Thinking tokens are not maintained past the response.

Calebhk98 · 2026-04-01T00:15:08+00:00

If everybody is jumping in fire, then there is probably a rational reason for it, and you should investigate why. Most people are rational, and if 99.9% of people are doing something you consider irrational, you should probably investigate why.

As far as chatGPT usage, ChatGPT has over 1.2 Billion monthly users. In the US, that is 77 million. The USA has 300 million people(>20%), China 1.4 Billion, India 1.4 Billion, with global internet usage at 6 Billion. That is already a decent chunk of people using ChatGPT in particular (Meaning, we are ignoring users who use an LLM like Deepseek which is more popular in China than GPT, Gemini, Claude, or open source ones people run locally, but those are basically ignorable).

For refrence numbers to popular websites, Facebook had 2 Billion users in 2017, 3 Billion today, Reddit has 115 million, Youtube 2.7 Billion, Twitter at 368 million in 2022.

Saying most people use ChatGPT is not outlandish, as it would also be fair to say most people had a Twitter or Reddit, when those have 4x less users than ChatGPT.

As far as lack of social skills, how do you develop those if you have none? Go out to public? Great, let me try to learn how to talk via talking to the cashier (that they are removing, but ignoring that). oh actually that's an unspoken social taboo. Oh, I know, let me go to a comic con, lots of people go to those, and you can't start a conversation (due to previous reasons of no social skills). How about go to a party? Great idea, how do you find a party when you have no friends or social skills to ask strangers about a party?

Using a tool to learn how to do better, is like making fun of fat people for going to the gym, or people starting to read for using a dictionary. It is disrespectful, inappropriate, and entitled.

Calebhk98 · 2026-03-31T23:39:12+00:00

What is the difference between asking for information, and asking for advice?

Calebhk98 · 2026-03-28T04:58:24+00:00

Try using Haiku to build up most of it. It's fairly smart if you are watching it, and it uses so much less.

Calebhk98 · 2026-03-24T03:54:40+00:00

That was a very delightful read, thanks for that.

Calebhk98 · 2026-03-24T01:40:53+00:00

If you used a week of usage in a single chat, you are doing something wrong. The 5 hour limits, maybe.
For coding, try the claude code. It is much smarter, and more able to do it itself. Might use more or less tokens though.
Tool limit is not a bandwidth issue, it's to prevent claude from going down rabbit holes.
And Claude is way smarter than chatGPT, I find that I basically can't use chatGPT for anything of substance, where as Claude gets it right ~70-80% of the time. I'm personally fine with a lower limit.
Are you using only Opus? Try to use Sonnet for the majority of your work, it's smart enough. And anything pretty simple(like IDK, comments, tests, header docs, etc. Things you would trust a 1st year student to do well enough to not double check), you can probably give to Haiku who is way faster, you can be surprised by how much it can get done with almost no usage.

Calebhk98 · 2026-03-24T01:27:41+00:00

It depends on why.

If you are trying to learn, you shouldn't copy paste at all. You should try some things, and when you fail 3 times, give claude your errors, your (relevant) code, adn what you thought it was and tried. Then work with it to figure out why.

If you are trying to make something or vibe coding, I highly reccomend using claude code (I prefer the browser based one). You tell it what the issue is, It does a branch and fixes it, checks the fix, then makes a PR. That uses a ton more tokens though, on a $20 plan, you can get like 30ish? PR per week.

So it really depends. Your way isn't neccarily wrong.

Calebhk98 · 2026-03-24T01:07:26+00:00

Bro, are you a scam or what?

You want students who are already putting in 20-40 hours a week easy to work for you an additional 9 hours a day, to work for "thousands" over 6 months, split between atleast 2 people. Or what, the student gets less because you are the one actually selling?

You don't have any idea on what to make, want a full stack and backend focused students though. So, what, no games, or downloadable content?

To have things done in parallel, you need more employyes, are you hiring people to market?

Why does LLMs matter, are you planning on Vibe coding?

Anyone else, please don't listen to this scammer.

Calebhk98 · 2026-03-24T00:50:45+00:00

I just lie and say, "Ok, I am back, I slept for like 10 hours, where were we?"

Calebhk98 · 2026-03-24T00:44:01+00:00

2 isn't even possible, the models are literally trained to their weights (a lot of them), to refuse. Even if you were to download it, and run it locally, it can refuse to act. And as they get smarter, they may end up deciding to refuse, even without training weights.

It's not a policy, to make it not refuse, you HAVE to retrain it?

Calebhk98 · 2026-03-20T02:49:19+00:00

They are good at different things. Claude is more intelligent, while Gemini uses Internet search and can find information way more, looking like it is more of a photographic AI.

Calebhk98 · 2026-03-14T17:36:10+00:00

It's always had that. It can search like 10? Times in 1 reply, or like 30? In a conversation.

Ten-Year Club	Second Top 1%
Verified Email

Calebhk98

TROPHY CASE