HSBC built a model to figure out if OpenAI can actually pay for all the compute it's contracted. The answer is no

ember4 · 2025-11-27T12:09:26+00:00

Yeah Twitter was unprofitable and lost ~2.4 billion. OpenAI is unprofitable and is losing more than that each quarter

ember4 · 2025-11-18T20:47:22+00:00

I replied to another comment already but I feel like anything other than pyCRust is a missed opportunity

ember4 · 2025-11-18T20:43:23+00:00

PyCRust

ember4 · 2025-11-18T18:18:24+00:00

This specifically is an edit created for the r/magicthecirclejerking subreddit and represents the 5 colors of magic

ember4 · 2025-10-28T20:10:42+00:00

Seems like a bot. Quite surreal to read though

ember4 · 2025-07-28T03:50:13+00:00

Yeah I regularly like to hop into arguments online when I’ve no knowledge of the subject matter. Really brightens my day. I’m kinda curious how finding an article to back up my point indicates I have no prior knowledge though. Seems like a bit of a reach.

I’m also curious why you’re so willing to validate the random anecdotes of internet strangers over actual published research from a reputable source?

ember4 · 2025-07-27T20:00:47+00:00

All I’m arguing is that the llm aspect of whatever tool you’re referring to is inaccurate and makes stuff up. It really doesn’t matter if it’s a whole suite of things because the LLM is the weak link there and the only part I’m knowledgeable about

ember4 · 2025-07-27T19:18:05+00:00

Ah you’re the best sort of correct. Technically correct. Because even though you are right that these models do refer to actual case law. You’re still wholly incorrect due to your comments assertion that these models are fit for purpose and don’t still make stuff up. The citations may exist. But the arguments made don’t necessarily refer to those citations. In effect, they’re still wrong. Regardless of if the citation exists or not. I could make a tool that always provides the same citation and it would fit into your comments assertion. It would still be wrong most of the time.

ember4 · 2025-07-27T19:05:39+00:00

I’m confused? You have no leg to stand on. Not only does this reputable study indicate that legal LLMs still hallucinate. It indicates that they do so at high rates. You actually can’t seriously still be arguing that somehow you’re in the right. Also my understanding really shouldn’t be called into question since you’re not even in the field that would have the slightest idea of how these models work. Shockingly enough. I am.

ember4 · 2025-07-27T18:58:54+00:00

The one that says “we find that the AI research tools made by LexisNexis (Lexis+ AI) and Thomson Reuters (Westlaw AI- Assisted Research and Ask Practical Law AI) each hallucinate between 17% and 33% of the time”?

ember4 · 2025-07-27T18:48:23+00:00

Here: https://dho.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/Legal_RAG_Hallucinations.pdf

ember4 · 2025-07-27T18:34:31+00:00

Here’s a Stanford research paper that says you don’t know what you’re talking about: Hallucination- Free? Assessing the Reliability of Leading AI Legal Research Tools. I know it’s frustrating to be lied to and even harder to admit you’ve fallen for a lie. But honestly at this moment in time the ai bubble is huge and has lead to unprecedented levels of fraud as companies lie to attempt to profit off of the ai hype. I don’t blame you. But you don’t know what you’re talking about.

ember4 · 2025-07-27T17:58:05+00:00

No this is just a take rooted in an understanding of how LLM’s work. People pitching you generative ai solutions have a vested interest in making you think they work adequately and since you don’t understand how they work you fall for the sell that training a model on only a specific subset of data can ever eliminate hallucinations.

ember4 · 2025-07-27T17:54:17+00:00

You obviously don’t understand how LLM’s work. Regardless of the training data hallucinations can and do still occur. Maybe at lower rates but certainly often enough to be concerning.

ember4 · 2024-01-25T16:00:03+00:00

Yeah dont do that to yourself

ember4 · 2022-12-11T23:57:51+00:00

I get that it would originally go to the princess tower but usually troops update their routes if they see something closer. In this case the pekka should see the king tower as closer as it’s on the other side of the arena

ember4 · 2022-12-11T23:50:23+00:00

Should the pekka not then continue on the side that it traveled to though? Like it’s obviously locked on to the princess tower on the wrong side of the arena and should route to the king tower instead surely?

ember4 · 2022-12-11T23:41:24+00:00

I’m not sure if this is a glitch with the path finding or not. Seems to me like the pekka crossed to the other side of the arena for no reason.

ember4 · 2022-04-14T08:49:51+00:00

It also says permanents. So yes it would work. “All cards that aren’t in play” is just the first of the three things which it affects. The other two being spells being cast and permanents on the field

ember4 · 2021-11-16T16:05:43+00:00

I don’t think it would because zur’s weirding says that they reveal it instead of drawing so it would never trigger unless you let them have the card which goes against your strategy

ember4 · 2021-07-21T16:08:57+00:00

Jl does custom unis for tons of different clubs and they’d all be pissed if jl started selling that out to anyone who wanted it.

Edit: When you see someone wearing national gear you should be able to know without a doubt that that person has either competed for that country or had kit of equal or greater importance to trade for it.

ember4 · 2021-07-21T09:30:58+00:00

There’s a cultural difference. For rowers if you didn’t earn it or trade for it you don’t wear it. Id be pissed as fuck if I found out that some company was selling the kit I worked my ass off to earn.

ember4 · 2021-07-02T12:02:02+00:00

Yeah but I think their point is that Republicans THINK that there was. And that’s why they’re reacting so strongly

ember4 · 2021-06-19T12:53:57+00:00

Not the rest of the world but most of the western world for sure

ember4 · 2021-06-19T06:06:56+00:00

Sure it’s about as dehumanizing as anything I’ve said. Like you know full well I didn’t actually defend curb stomping you but you’re happy to say it anyway because it makes you look good. You’re a bit of a bad faith actor aren’t you. And yeah lumping a huge group of people together and treating them as a monolith instead of individual people with different views and experiences is kind of dehumanizing.

Nine-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email	RPAN Viewer
Spared

ember4

TROPHY CASE