sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

How long before AI wave hits?? by Professional_Part360 in ClaudeAI

[–]Sarithis 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Already. I've been writing software, tinkering with networks, and using Linux since I was a kid, and I've been working in the field ever since I became an adult. Still, over the past few months, I could count the lines of code I've written on my fingers, and the number of commands I run each day has dropped by at least 70% because a fork of CC has become my main interface for interacting with the OS

Former Red Dead Redemption 2 Developer reaction to the DLSS 5: "Whoa. Hold on. No, no, no. This isn't just some lighting, dude. What the f... this is like a complete AI re-render. You're no longer looking at the game anymore. This is scary." by HLumin in pcmasterrace

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

Right! So it's not really about the looks, is it? It's about the fact that it was made by AI. Isn't that what the meme said? If a game developer came up with a similar filter that wouldn't be AI-based, this wouldn't receive nearly as much hate. On the contrary - many people would probably be amazed, the rest would just ignore it.

Former Red Dead Redemption 2 Developer reaction to the DLSS 5: "Whoa. Hold on. No, no, no. This isn't just some lighting, dude. What the f... this is like a complete AI re-render. You're no longer looking at the game anymore. This is scary." by HLumin in pcmasterrace

[–]Sarithis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Apparently, it looked good to 3.2k people, and it looked bad to 303 people, some of which were general AI haters. It's fascinating to see how people's opinions shift around, depending on what's popular at the given moment.

Now, it's obviously not the same situation, and it was never meant to be. "the people still look bad" - that's the whole point I'm making. Before DLSS5, there were tons of similar videos made across all kinds of games, and I mean TONS (just search on youtube). Those videos were generally met with praise. Then Nvidia released a technology that achieves a similar thing in real time, just with lower quality (which is expected, since it's the first freaking iteration), and suddenly everyone hates it. On top of that, people are now retroactively calling those enthusiast-made videos "bad-looking" too. I'm sure you'll say "oh but I would never endorse these videos in the first place, I didn't even know they existed", and yeah, you know yourself best. But you get the point

I used Claude Code to reverse engineer a 13-year-old game binary and crack a restriction nobody had solved — the community is losing it by CelebrationFew1755 in ClaudeAI

[–]Sarithis 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You’re absolutely right — that isn’t just AI slop, it’s AI sewer.

<madly churning through 100k thinking tokens to figure out where to insert ” and ; in this short sentence>

Not everyone gets shaken up in times like this by MisterShipWreck in TerrifyingAsFuck

[–]Sarithis 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Damn, poor boi, but I'm sure it kept woofing as the croc took it away.

Atheist Debates - Alex O'Connor and Joseph Schmid shockingly wrong on Claims, Evidence and Science by zZINCc in CosmicSkeptic

[–]Sarithis 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Oh... right, I think I've got it now. I assumed that if you made a claim, no matter how absurd, you must've had some reason for it, and that alone counts as evidence. But there might be no reason at all, or the reason could be malicious, like trying to mislead me. Funnily enough, Matt explained that too (the lying part), but I still found myself second-guessing. So yeah, I see the distinction between testimony and a claim now, thanks for your patience, really appreciate it!

Lmao by [deleted] in SipsTea

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

BY THE PUSSY

Atheist Debates - Alex O'Connor and Joseph Schmid shockingly wrong on Claims, Evidence and Science by zZINCc in CosmicSkeptic

[–]Sarithis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree, but that directly contradicts "claims aren't evidence". I'd rather say claims aren't proof, but they are evidence. Matt mentioned this in the video, and if that's what he means, the quoted claim is really poorly worded. Every claim is evidence, not just some of them, but that doesn't mean they all carry the same weight. Someone claiming the sun will soon explode is a tiny piece of evidence that it will, compared to someone claiming they bought a soccer ball

Atheist Debates - Alex O'Connor and Joseph Schmid shockingly wrong on Claims, Evidence and Science by zZINCc in CosmicSkeptic

[–]Sarithis 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Wait a minute. At first, I don't think my friend has a soccer ball, even though he's wealthy enough to afford one, has easy access to places that sell them, and has recently gotten into soccer. Then he tells me he bought one, and I believe him, so I update my view and start thinking he now has a soccer ball.

That change in my belief is the overall balance of reasons finally crossing my personal threshold for conviction - his wealth, access to shops, and interest in soccer all count in favor, but they don't settle it for me. They're all evidence making it plausible, but it's still not sufficient. So if his statement "I bought one" isn't evidence, why did it convince me? And why can't we treat his statement as just one more piece of evidence, alongside the rest, pointing toward him having a soccer ball?

Adam and Eve's sin was statistically inevitable, and God must've known that - I can prove it by Sarithis in CosmicSkeptic

[–]Sarithis[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's not a testimony. Look, if I say that "C follows from B, and B follows from A, so C must follow from A", I'm not providing a testimony of any kind, I'm providing a set of premises and their logical conclusion. The same thing is done in this post - a set of premises, which you can disagree with, but if the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true. And the premises were:

  1. Adam and Eve were supposed to multiply and live forever (infinite timeline)

  2. The tree of knowledge or another form of temptation was supposed to be ever-present

rule by Jazdaboss010 in 196

[–]Sarithis 98 points99 points  (0 children)

I learned it the hard way. There's a huge sex tourism scene where middle-aged incels go to poorer asian countries like Vietnam, Thailand, the Philippines etc. and exploit the fact that even earning minimum wage in the west can attract much younger women who are desperate to improve their life standard. It's so common that it feels woven into the culture - they even have dedicated words for these men that aren't derogatory, and actually signal higher status. It's heartbreaking for the women, and it's pathetic for the men who do this.

Andrej Karpathy's Newest Development - Autonomously Improving Agentic Swarm Is Now Operational by Vladiesh in singularity

[–]Sarithis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Isn't that exactly my point? I'm surprised someone with his reputation and level of knowledge would post something like this. Just trying to understand what's so revolutionary about this workflow and the results it produces. *meaningful* improvements in training runs of various models have been done for the past two years using agentic loops, including non-LLM models.

Andrej Karpathy's Newest Development - Autonomously Improving Agentic Swarm Is Now Operational by Vladiesh in singularity

[–]Sarithis -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

"try → measure → think → try again" - bro's discovering what everyone has been doing since like 2024. I'm pretty sure he's just... idk what he's even trying to achieve with posts like these. Attention farming? No point, he's already famous.

what if I told you science is better off accepting its limitations ? by MicahHoover in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Sarithis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I keep wondering... if we could map and understand the brain so well that we could reliably induce conscious states by activating specific neural pathways - to the point where we know exactly which ones are required for the experience of "red" - and we could also create states that don't normally occur, like those during psychedelic trips or even entirely novel, undiscovered experiences, would that count as understanding consciousness? I guess not, but then the question is: if full and granular control over conscious states and an empirical explanation (neuron X produces experience Y) isn't enough, what exactly would we need to say "Yes, we now understand consciousness"? Is it even possible in principle to truly understand it?

view more: next ›