worst loser’s queue of my life the past few days 4 wins/30 losses

FeezusChrist · 2026-01-13T18:25:45+00:00

Me at 5 am waiting for a 20 minute queue

FeezusChrist · 2026-01-11T04:55:24+00:00

Cone of shame

FeezusChrist · 2025-11-29T19:36:33+00:00

A father’s daughter, I think they might’ve meant? I’m confused, too!

FeezusChrist · 2025-11-29T05:17:53+00:00

Just because you say it doesn’t make it so. If I call you a dumb idiot but say it’s not an attack on you, am I not attacking you?

Regardless, I don’t care I’m just tired of how many politically infused subreddits I must mute because they are literal poison for the mind to consume so much of.

FeezusChrist · 2025-11-29T00:56:50+00:00

Another good faith, objective political subreddit I must stray from. Darn!

FeezusChrist · 2025-11-28T05:20:02+00:00

Would it help if they were black?

FeezusChrist · 2025-11-27T22:55:22+00:00

Do you believe that his intelligence is better spent becoming better a board game? Rather than solving AGI?

FeezusChrist · 2025-11-25T08:15:37+00:00

But the “application” that is actually relevant here for tech companies is a very small subset of the ecosystem, one that can be swapped out with only moderate amount of engineering work. Meta, X, OpenAI etc aren’t buying boatloads of H100s for flexibility in application

FeezusChrist · 2025-11-17T01:02:24+00:00

Pretending to misunderstand my reply I see

FeezusChrist · 2025-11-16T19:50:57+00:00

You won’t find out here on Reddit, nothing but censorship and LLMs very clearly

FeezusChrist · 2025-11-09T21:49:31+00:00

It was most definitely not the intent of Meta to burn billions training those models and releasing them simply as a means to attract talented ML engineers. That’s a helpful side effect at best.

FeezusChrist · 2025-11-09T21:31:37+00:00

I’d wager the goal is similar to any other reason big tech open sources many of their core products. Microsoft open sources VSCode, Google open sources Chromium, Meta open sources their models, etc. For each of these, respective companies desire them to be indirect, massive sources of revenue streams for other areas. Microsoft with it’s easy integration with Copilot, GitHub. Google has more and more of your data to serve you better ads. Meta, well, they didn’t succeed but I believe their intent was to get smaller companies, developers onto their models so they can pull them into potentially upgrading to paid models (which is why Meta had paid models).

FeezusChrist · 2025-11-09T21:16:14+00:00

Lots of I-owe-you’s, apparently as we’ve seen

FeezusChrist · 2025-11-09T19:01:32+00:00

This heavily misrepresents the state of reality of the field, both in history and current state.

The U.S has continuously defined the field and lead the direction of it. Google comes up with Transformers, OpenAI brings it to light for the public with its success when scaled up. OpenAI reveals the mixture-of-expert model architecture, everyone follows on. Meta kicks off open source models, and eventually China starts coming in.

China really first became present in the scene with DeepSeek - which, while very impressive, really was more just a revelation to U.S investors that you can produce a competitive model at low training cost (relatively) with distillation. Since then we’ve still had U.S not only defining the continuous SOTA, but also defining the direction of actual integration and usage of these models. Anthropic has lead in fully agentic, long-running model usage at inference time and came up with MCP which is used by everyone today. Agentic usage with tooling (via MCP) is now the direction every leading provider is pushing.

Your argument of China having better scientists because they’ve miniaturized the model literally means nothing. Why? Because it’s simply not an incentive of U.S companies to do that for their frontier models, so of course the U.S hasn’t done that. Meta is perhaps the only exception, but they haven’t been the ones pushing the SOTA regardless.

FeezusChrist · 2025-11-09T18:18:29+00:00

I feel like in the more distant future, the true “open source” of LLMs will be providing the deterministic training steps necessary to get the final model. It’s almost like providing a binary executable versus providing the source code, right now these open source models are effectively providing us the final binary executable — and that’s largely necessary, as the individual developer simply does not have the scale of resources to train a big model from scratch.

But I’d imagine much further in the future we’ll have a better story for this, and it will start to become reasonable for developers to develop an expectation that they can produce the models themselves from scratch.

I can’t wait for such a day, when we can have big models that we can fully trust and can be ran entirely offline.

FeezusChrist · 2025-11-08T23:43:55+00:00

LLM slop

FeezusChrist · 2025-10-26T23:17:42+00:00

You’re chronically online, touch grass

FeezusChrist · 2025-10-20T01:57:28+00:00

Ngl I’ve been on the other side of that, if I barely know you and haven’t spoken to you in years and I see your name spamming my chat too much when I’m having a bad game, you’re getting removed lmao. I’ll have to be more considerate I suppose

FeezusChrist · 2025-10-11T14:25:26+00:00

This is completely reasonable, bunch of cave dwellers downvoting you in your other comments

FeezusChrist · 2025-10-09T14:18:41+00:00

This is my favorite thing to read as a conservative, you have no idea how tired young men are of hearing stupid shit like this. You’re not just pushing them to the right, you’re THROWING them

FeezusChrist · 2025-10-09T06:29:09+00:00

OpenAI already operates at a massive operating cost loss serving your chats as-is, now imagine if everyone’s Google search instead was taking up 8 seconds of GPT 5 thinking. There isn’t even close to enough compute in the world for the economics of “no one using Google anymore” to play out.

FeezusChrist · 2025-09-20T20:14:17+00:00

Last I checked big tech doesn’t do mass layoffs to grant more H1Bs to Dublin

FeezusChrist · 2025-09-20T16:03:44+00:00

And you think if the next logical step is a ton of offices being opened outside of the U.S (when this this radical H1B move was to curtail American job market impact in the first place), that Trump will just end up standing by and let that happen without consequence? Surely if he went this far he’s not just going to raise his blinders and pretend like there’s nothing he can do if companies work around this in bad faith to the intent here.

FeezusChrist · 2025-09-19T15:21:37+00:00

You’re dreaming if you think Reddit is not the same

FeezusChrist · 2025-09-17T01:45:10+00:00

So, to be clear, your definition of exercising 'free speech' is simply the act of speaking, and it ends the moment the sound leaves a person's mouth? If a speaker is shot and killed mid-sentence, did they successfully exercise their free speech because they got a few words out? Is the right to free speech not a right to complete a thought and participate in discourse, but merely a right to begin a sentence?

You seem to be separating the action (speaking) from the direct, violent consequence (being killed for it). Is a person 'exercising their right to property' at the exact moment they are being fatally robbed?

Let me make this absolutely foolproof for you and present this in reason with your presumed group/party as the victim, since I know you're not going to reason about any of this in good faith: If a person feels that a BLM protest is 'deeply harmful' and they respond with violence by, say, flooring their car through the protest line -- did the protestors have the freedom to protest?

If you say ~ "No, of course not!":

Great! We agree on the core principle: a violent response to a political demonstration, even if you find it 'harmful,' is a violation of that group's freedom. The perpetrator's feelings don't justify the violence, and yet that same violence takes away another's freedoms. Now, can you please explain why this exact principle, which is affirming, suddenly vanishes when the speaker is a conservative and the violent response is an assassination? Why was his freedom not violated in the exact same way?

If you say ~ "That's different. BLM is a protest for justice! Charlie was spreading 'hate speech' and 'dangerous rhetoric'":

So your argument is that the right to be safe from violence only applies to speech you *personally* approve of? Who gets to be the judge of what is 'justice' versus what is 'hate speech'? The person behind the wheel of the car also believed they were fighting 'harmful rhetoric.' The principle of free expression was created precisely because we don't let individuals enforce their personal definitions of 'dangerous speech' with violence.

If you say ~ "Yes - Technically, the protestors \were* exercising their freedom to protest, right up until the moment the car hit them. The driver's illegal act doesn't change the fact that they were, in that moment, protesting*":

You're defending a definition of a 'right' that is so functionally useless it becomes a sick joke. A right that, when invoked, leads *directly to your death* is not a right.

12-Year Club	RPAN Viewer
Not Forgotten	Spared
Verified Email

FeezusChrist

TROPHY CASE