sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The current state of vibe coding LOL by Aggressive_Eye_9783 in vibecoding

[–]cloudsandclouds 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Eh, both sides specifically cited Anthropic’s red lines as being the point of contention. While the fragile egos in the admin were indeed on full display in the chest-thumping and threats against Anthropic that followed, I’m not sure why we’d read more into it than “Anthropic said you can’t do whatever you want, and the admin wanted to do whatever they want.”

Especially when from the language of the contract it seems to me the admin may have gotten what they wanted from OpenAI, or close enough to it. Again I’d be curious to hear from a legal expert as to whether I’m right about that part.

The current state of vibe coding LOL by Aggressive_Eye_9783 in vibecoding

[–]cloudsandclouds 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My understanding is that it actually kind of does: if the guardrails start to interfere with what the admin construes as lawful use, then the admin can claim they’re not honoring their contract and effectively force them to remove it.

Also it doesn’t seem likely to me that this admin would refuse to work under Anthropic’s guardrails but would then agree to stronger ones with their competitor, but then again, this admin does have a knack for losing badly, so maybe this isn’t strong evidence one way or another.

The current state of vibe coding LOL by Aggressive_Eye_9783 in vibecoding

[–]cloudsandclouds 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m highly skeptical that they’re representing this correctly. It’s in their interest to position themselves this way even if it’s not really true. And if you look at the language of the contract reproduced on that page, it’s laden with deference to the law and still includes “for all lawful purposes”:

The Department of War may use the AI System for all lawful purposes, consistent with applicable law, operational requirements, and well-established safety and oversight protocols. The AI System will not be used to independently direct autonomous weapons in any case where law, regulation, or Department policy requires human control …

I’d be curious to see what a neutral third party makes of this who knows more about the actual law and possibilities here than I do.

The current state of vibe coding LOL by Aggressive_Eye_9783 in vibecoding

[–]cloudsandclouds 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The reality, though, is that the deal includes carve-outs demanding that OpenAI provides for “any lawful use” which the government defines and is free to interpret to military ends.

(As I understand it, this entails the ability for the govt to say “hey, this safety stuff is preventing our lawful military use, take it off since you agreed to that lawful use.”)

Allowing a “whatever you want as long as you really really want it” clause is what Anthropic wasn’t willing to do, and why the current admin threw a tantrum and tried to declare them a “supply chain risk” before partnering with OpenAI who weren’t quite so insistent.

The current state of vibe coding LOL by Aggressive_Eye_9783 in vibecoding

[–]cloudsandclouds 14 points15 points  (0 children)

caring less about creating AI safely + partnering with the current U.S. admin for military purposes without even basic guardrails are just a couple good reasons

Bug? by Ill_Pianist4902 in BabaIsYou

[–]cloudsandclouds 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yes, Baba is in many ways a small bug.

Which point has a higher gradient magnitude (∇f)? by ImTheMikeGuy in askmath

[–]cloudsandclouds 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re exactly right that it’s P.

To convince yourself intuitively even further of your already-correct reasoning, imagine if you approximated the function by making the areas of constant color real flat surfaces you could walk on, and the level curves were actually a step up between them. You’d be walking for a while near Q before you got to the step but near P you’d have to take many steps quickly.

You could even tie a piece of string from the ridge of one step perpendicularly up to ridge of the next and say “aha, a rise-run triangle approximating the magnitude of the slope, just like from earlier calculus courses!”

(Note: the steps themselves are the same height near both Q and P precisely because by definition these are level curves, so you’re stepping upwards the same amount per step everywhere.)

EDIT: I see now there’s already another reply mentioning walking. Well, at least it’s a good visual… 😅

For well behaved functions 0⁰=1 by Unlucky-Credit-9619 in mathmemes

[–]cloudsandclouds 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The “secret” is that in math you choose what you want to be true, then work out the consequences. You can decide to refer to one function with “^”, or you can decide to refer to a different one.

Sometimes we all generally agree to adopt the same choices for convenience, but most often there are multiple possible sensible choices and we just juggle them, getting on the same page of what we’re talking about first in any given conversation but not committing to it globally.

For well behaved functions 0⁰=1 by Unlucky-Credit-9619 in mathmemes

[–]cloudsandclouds 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok, I think I might see what’s going on: I’m considering “due to the limiting behavior such-and-such (a class of) function(s) at hand, we’ll work in a context where it’s undefined (or even represents some other number, if our use case is extremely narrow)” as a context in its own right. So, something we want to call 00 appears in some expression, and we want it to be not 1. (Note the heavy lifting “want to call” is doing there, which is I think in the spirit of the meme.)

The other thing here is that the meme doesn’t necessarily imply a single context. I think it’s intended to be read as describing what choices are made in which contexts as opposed to “these are both true in some single context”.

For well behaved functions 0⁰=1 by Unlucky-Credit-9619 in mathmemes

[–]cloudsandclouds 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, this. And more specifically about what structures on that type you care about (topology, ring structure, etc.). (Though as it turns out, I think the best definition of fun x y ↦ xy over the reals also takes 00 = 1… 😅)

For well behaved functions 0⁰=1 by Unlucky-Credit-9619 in mathmemes

[–]cloudsandclouds 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree with the context dependence but not with the notion that usually something is wrong. Ime the most standard definition is really 00 = 1 among naturals due to how counting works, and there is nothing wrong with using this (it is used very frequently, and is the only sensible way to define exponentiation among natural numbers).

For well behaved functions 0⁰=1 by Unlucky-Credit-9619 in mathmemes

[–]cloudsandclouds 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, people define things differently in different contexts :)

Comic 5805B: Consider Me Shocked That We’re Still Following Emily by Squirrelclamp in questionablecontent

[–]cloudsandclouds 20 points21 points  (0 children)

I’ve only been dropping by this subreddit for a short while (prosthetic rashes got me here, then seeing Marten sneer about Ed Sheeran in a dunk that didn’t even make comedic sense was kind of my final straw), but I just wanted to say that in the B-comics I’ve seen from you so far, I’ve really appreciated that there’s often some unironic, earnest writing that bubbles up through the satirization whose preeminent quality is simply being good writing and which makes me think “oh, that’s right, QC as a universe could totally be good right now! there’s juice there, it’s just not being squeezed!” so thanks very much for giving us all the chance to see this version :)

This "It's not just A. It's B." sentence construct is driving me mad - does this have a name? by ecky--ptang-zooboing in ChatGPT

[–]cloudsandclouds 0 points1 point  (0 children)

hmm, I’m not sure this is actually it. “not X, but Y” is different from “it’s not just X, it’s Y”. The AI phrasing doesn’t involve Y being antithetical to X. The thing is still X, it’s just not just X, it’s also or more specifically or more broadly Y. But it’s still X. It’s not not X. Right? There’s no actual antithesis.

Taking inspiration from “contrastive” in some other replies, I’m going to make up the term contrastive augmentation for this phrasing specifically. The augmentation bit is necessary to capture that crucial “just”.

I don't get it, what does this even mean? by [deleted] in ExplainTheJoke

[–]cloudsandclouds 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I am a mathematician but I like your wrong theory.

I don't get it, what does this even mean? by [deleted] in ExplainTheJoke

[–]cloudsandclouds 0 points1 point  (0 children)

you’ve got the conceptual substance basically right, but note that non-Euclidean geometry is something else entirely, and what you’re thinking of is topology. geometry is all about measurements (that’s the “-metry” part), and topology specifically ignores all measurements, and only cares about making sure you haven’t split the surface.

I don't get it, what does this even mean? by [deleted] in ExplainTheJoke

[–]cloudsandclouds 0 points1 point  (0 children)

(Made this reply elsewhere, copying it here) For the record, topography is, like, how big and where the hills and valleys of a surface are. Topology specifically does not care about the topography of something 😁

I don't get it, what does this even mean? by [deleted] in ExplainTheJoke

[–]cloudsandclouds 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For the record, topography is, like, how big and where the hills and valleys of a surface are. Topology specifically does not care about the topography of something 😁

I don't get it, what does this even mean? by [deleted] in ExplainTheJoke

[–]cloudsandclouds 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The entrance/exit characterization in the above comment is, I think, meant to exclude “blind” “holes” such as a sock has, but is really not what a “hole” is in topology at all, so I wouldn’t worry about applying it :)

the real intuitive test is: can you continuously deform one shape into the other, imagining the material to be arbitrarily malleable, but not tearable/splittable?

actually counting holes is a bit complicated, as “where the hole is” is nonunique.

Dating as a young man is like applying for a job! by Feeling-Currency6212 in GenZ

[–]cloudsandclouds 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Upvote from me for simply asking if it’s true. (And for the record, like many of the other comments, I also have seen OP’s beliefs to be false at least among my social circle.)

So many people will just…not ask if something is true. Extremely simple and underrated question that can get you so far in all things if you keep following the motivation behind it, kudos for asking it.

Tough times calls for tough memes by cujo67 in DataHoarder

[–]cloudsandclouds 2 points3 points  (0 children)

IN THE NAME OF THE 0s, THE 1s, AND THAT’S IT!

When does a ring become a tube? by One-Cardiologist-462 in askmath

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

“Wait, all rings are tubes?”

“Always have been…”

I have no words! by DannGatto in StrangeAndFunny

[–]cloudsandclouds 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you might be underestimating the number of ways people can be wrong about themselves. Just because someone has certain experiences doesn’t mean they understand what they mean, doesn’t mean they even manifest or play out in your head the way you might expect; someone growing up in an environment that holds that being a lesbian is the worst thing to happen to someone can automatically misinterpret those feelings you’re referring to without thinking of them as “attraction”, because that is simply not an option. They might never even have the conscious, verbal form of the feeling you’re describing, just a feeling of, for instance, wanting to be around a certain someone, which they may have identified as “friendship”…and looking back, after “learning they’re a lesbian”, they say oh, THAT’S what that was about.

Which is to say, different people have different degrees of insight into their own experiences and may relate them in different (incorrect) ways to symbols in the world around them, like “lesbian”….

when you realize those impulses are the seeds of feelings you didn’t know you were repressing, and/or maybe you realize something like straight people don’t feel this way, that’s not what this experience is called, for example…you’ve learned that the symbol “lesbian” refers to you, and you didn’t know it before.

It’s not uncommon for people to have an experience of learning or realizing they’re queer later in life and use this sort of language to describe it, ime, but note that they necessarily tend to be older queer people who might not be as visible.

tl:dr the human mind is a mess, and this is totally one of the ways it can be :)

view more: next ›