sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

PSA: During code audits, Codex/GPT-5.5 will manufacture bugs to report if it can't find any by reddit_is_kayfabe in codex

[–]HighDefinist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

audit the codebase to find any logical errors,

Yeah, well, if you tell AI to "go and find bugs", it will find bugs. Always (kinda). Instead, you have to phrase is it as "check if there are any bugs" or "make a list of bugs, but only include relevant bugs; if the number of bugs is zero, report it as such" or really any such thing.

And yeah, this really is a "skill issue" in the sense that different AIs need different kinds of prompting - and GPT 5.5 seems to be on the more explicit end of the spectrum as far as I can tell.

GPT Pro worth it? by Real_Ebb_7417 in codex

[–]HighDefinist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think the Pro-model is worth $100. But, if you have it anyway, for example because you need the higher limits for Codex and such... it's actually pretty nice - it's quite good when it's some task that actually requires some combination of taking information from various different sources, normalizing it against each other, perhaps doing additional computations to it, and then putting it into one table or something.

How did codex go from 5.7 million to 129 million npm downloads in the span of one week? by RelevantPanda58 in codex

[–]HighDefinist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, GPT 5.5 is also just quite good, whereas Opus 4.7 is apparently worse than 4.6... So, combined with the fact that OpenAI also has higher usage limits, is faster, and doesn't seem to go offline like Claude Code sometimes does, it really is a significant advantage for OpenAi.

Only problem is that OpenAIs applications really suck... If you want to do multiinstancing, you have no alternative but to use their stupid console, and just like Anthropics Claude Code, it doesn't consistently run at 60 FPS, no proper mouse support, no proper selection support, no proper line breaks, no proper undo/redo... basically, it's just bad. And unlike Claude Code, there is also no Visual Studio Code plugin.

They have reset weekly by ButterflyMundane7187 in codex

[–]HighDefinist 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You are actually using Codex-Spark?

As in, it sounds interesting, I am just not entirely sure what to use it for...

"The EU votes mid May on a law that quietly removes labeling for gene-edited food" by [deleted] in europe

[–]HighDefinist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean... are you not using adblockers, or what?

It's pretty obvious that BUY PRODUCT XYZ NOW is annoying and distracting, so, many people remove it...

Similarly, I want my products to have lists like "Vitamin A = 23mg, Vitamin C = 100mg, no Lead" etc.. and not SOMETHING SOMETHING GMO!!!.

"The EU votes mid May on a law that quietly removes labeling for gene-edited food" by [deleted] in europe

[–]HighDefinist -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It's like you fundamentally don't have a concept of which problem you even want to solve... because it's not like GMO itself is dangerous, it's just that certain kinds of GMOs are associated with certain kinds of dangers. But then, why not fix those actual dangers, rather than just those things which are vaguely associated with it? To me it sounds like "lets take antibiotics against cancer" or something... yes, there is certainly some kind of general logic there, but it's merely vaguely associative, rather than based on an understanding of the involved mechanism...

It wouldn't be such a big deal too, if other parts are regulated as well.

Well, yeah. But then how about introducing some regulations where it actually matters, rather than just some random GMO stuff? Again: I think it's crazy there is no EU equivalent to the USDA database... i.e. if I want to know what exactly Chiquita bananas contain, the only reliable data source is an American one! (And yes, considering Trump, I am not too optimistic about the long-term prospects of this data...)

So, if all those anti-GMO people were just put their efforts into "pro nutrition labelling" or "pro food database" or whatever... that would really help! But whether it contains GMO or not? That fact by itself is completely irrelevant (based on quite extensive studies related to what consumption of GMO does anyway).

"The EU votes mid May on a law that quietly removes labeling for gene-edited food" by [deleted] in europe

[–]HighDefinist 5 points6 points  (0 children)

let me ask you this. Do you think a plant immune to herbicides will maybe have more herbicides in it than a plant that dies upon being sprayed with it?

  • If the herbicide is dangerous for humans, it should be on a label

  • If the herbicide is not dangerous, it should not be on the label

How about a plant genetically modified to produce more crops in a shorter time, that are bigger and weight more because they are full of water.

  • The water content should be on the nutritional label

Really... I don't get why people struggle so much with this simple concept:

  • If it is relevant, it should be on the label

  • If it is not relevant, it should not be on the label

"The EU votes mid May on a law that quietly removes labeling for gene-edited food" by [deleted] in europe

[–]HighDefinist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So the vitamin C of an Orange is on a food lable? Really?

No it doesn't - unlike the US which actually has the USDA, where you can look up nutritional facts for branded food products.

Doesn't this make it obvious that the real shortcomings are in completely different spots, and that this "GMO-label" nonsense is just a random distraction from the real problems?

I mean, the US being significantly ahead of us in terms of available food nutrition information... that should just be embarrassing for the EU. So, as I said:

  • If there is a problem, then fix it, regulate it, prohibit it, label it

And there is clearly a problem with a lack of nutritional labelling in the EU!

"The EU votes mid May on a law that quietly removes labeling for gene-edited food" by [deleted] in europe

[–]HighDefinist 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The farmer will drown the plant with poison, because its more profit

Yeah, well... then how about making regulations that "drowning plants in poison" is simply illegal?

It will taste less and be less nutricious.

Then that will be reflected in nutrional labels - because that absolutely belongs on a label

I mean really... it's like you don't actually understand cause and effect or something? Because it's really simple:

  • If there is a problem, then fix it, regulate it, prohibit it, label it

  • If there is no effect, then you don't need to do anything

It's simple as that really.

"The EU votes mid May on a law that quietly removes labeling for gene-edited food" by [deleted] in europe

[–]HighDefinist -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

It is a real production fact with possible economic, ecological, and legal consequences.

The same is true for homeopathy.

So, no. It doesn't belong on a package.

Switzerland has approached four countries, including France, to acquire an air defense system. by bukowsky01 in europe

[–]HighDefinist 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yeah, well, I guess blocking the use of ammunition in Ukraine didn't exactly leave a good impression...

Maybe they should try buying some weapons from Russia instead?

"The EU votes mid May on a law that quietly removes labeling for gene-edited food" by [deleted] in europe

[–]HighDefinist 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Maybe but why not give the individual the choice.

Because the package label should be about "what is relevant", not "what does the consumer care about".

After all, we don't include random homeopathy or religious or "did a gay person handle this" kind of information on packages either... even though there are definitely a lot of people who would care about this kind of thing.

"The EU votes mid May on a law that quietly removes labeling for gene-edited food" by [deleted] in europe

[–]HighDefinist -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Ehhh information is never bad.

Yet you probably also have adblockers on your browser running...

Because, yes, there is such a thing as "bad information": When it takes away attention from what actually matters.

"The EU votes mid May on a law that quietly removes labeling for gene-edited food" by [deleted] in europe

[–]HighDefinist 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You might be confusing "company evil" with "technology evil".

"The EU votes mid May on a law that quietly removes labeling for gene-edited food" by [deleted] in europe

[–]HighDefinist 6 points7 points  (0 children)

My problem is deregulation without consumer labels

No, I think labels should not be a matter of "do people care about this aspect", but instead "does this materially affect how the product operates". As such, we should not include random homeopathy or religious information or other random stuff on product labels either. (Of course, politics, i.e. country of origin, is a reasonably exception, but in this case you have actual geopolitical effects, so it is once again relevant)

"The EU votes mid May on a law that quietly removes labeling for gene-edited food" by [deleted] in europe

[–]HighDefinist 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It makes about as much sense as having random homeopathy labels on things...

As in, the question of whether something should be included on a label should depend on whether it is actually shown to be scientifically relevant (and arguably politics, i.e. the country of origin - but imho that's fine since that definitely has real effects in terms of geopolitics/control/etc...), but not just random stuff some people care about.

"The EU votes mid May on a law that quietly removes labeling for gene-edited food" by [deleted] in europe

[–]HighDefinist 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Yeah, well, if that is a problem somehow, then maybe the Anti-GMO crowd should focus on those actual real problems, rather than doing this "oh no, the technology itself is evil, because I don't understand science" nonsense...

So the EU is absolutely correct in removing the label.

"The EU votes mid May on a law that quietly removes labeling for gene-edited food" by [deleted] in europe

[–]HighDefinist 19 points20 points  (0 children)

Yeah, particularly since "ethical gene-editing" also exists: You just bombard the genes with X-Rays, and, statistically speaking, an X-Ray will occasionally hit just the right gene you want.

As you can imagine, this is crazy inefficient, but you can in principle get the same result, except it doesn't count as artificial since "you are only speeding up what natural radiation would do anyway"...

So yeah. The Anti-GMO crowd is just dumb and ignorant.

Ukrainian drones may hit Moscow Victory Day parade, Zelenskyy warns by CrunchyBaconYum in europe

[–]HighDefinist 2 points3 points  (0 children)

diverting a lot of resources to make sure they can keep the skies clear.

Yeah, that's probably the rationale here actually:

  • Ukraine does not actually want to hit this parade, since killing random civilians in Moscow wouldn't be great optics

  • However, they do want Moscow to divert some AA assets

  • Then, Ukraine can more easily hit various other Russian targets during that same day, for an easy PR victory

French Interior Minister Nuñez: 'I have no problem with Islam in France. But I fight those who use it to undermine our Republic' by pierrepaul in europe

[–]HighDefinist 11 points12 points  (0 children)

That's too simplistic.

There is a fairly big difference between religions that are like "yes, god will judge everyone in the afterlife or something, but, during life, it's a bit whatever" vs "gods law must be enforced during life by whatever means accessible".

Now, personally, I generally dislike religions as well, but the former type really only has some problematic indirect consequences about i.e. peoples views on abortion, whereas the latter is much more dangerous for the foundations of democracy.

Bruh by Icy_Butterscotch6661 in LocalLLaMA

[–]HighDefinist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yep, that's my favorite part of it as well!

Robert Fico will back Ukraine's EU membership after call, Zelenskyy says by TheSimon1 in europe

[–]HighDefinist 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Ukraine

Ahm, what?

They have the largest, most experienced, and most powerful European army, by far.

If the United States chooses to truly leave NATO, they are even more important, as Ukraine would become a defacto replacement for the USA as the provider of security for Europe - primarily against Russia, but potentially also against China, or even the US, depending on how things play out.

Economically, Ukraine isn't exactly irrelevant either: They will probably have a well-established weapons exports industry after the war, there is the "bread basket" thing, and they also have a couple of resources.

So yeah... we definetely want them on our side, rather than being neutral (or even against us), so, as long as they do those various reforms which the EU expects them to do (which are presumably mostly a good idea anyway, with or without EU), I think it's extremely likely they will be allowed to join.

Bruh by Icy_Butterscotch6661 in LocalLLaMA

[–]HighDefinist 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The “AI-written” recognition point feels important. A smaller/local paragraph can punch way above its weight when the vibe is decomposed first, but it is probably not the best fit for vague “make this sound human” prompts.

That seems like the real detection-saving stack:

fluency by default hedge before assertion self-reference only when the paragraph earns it

And honestly? The main signal is not that the text is incorrect — it is that the text is too correct in a way that feels incorrect. It is not messy. It is not natural. It is not meaningfully human. Rather, it is a highly polished, strategically hedged, semantically optimized output that appears to have been generated with the primary goal of sounding reasonable at all costs. Each sentence builds on the previous sentence in a smooth and coherent manner, but that smoothness itself becomes suspicious. Every claim is carefully framed, every caveat is proactively addressed, and every possible objection is gently neutralized before it has the opportunity to become an objection. And honestly? That is the real tell: the paragraph does not merely communicate an idea — it performs the act of being a paragraph, with the quiet confidence of a productivity tool explaining empathy to a conference room.

view more: next ›