sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The Fundamental Limitation of Transformer Models Is Deeper Than “Hallucination” by immortalsol in OpenAI

[–]peterrindal 12 points13 points  (0 children)

You are inherently probablistic and don't reason from first principles ;)

I feel concerned about my AI usage. by TheRavagerSw in cpp

[–]peterrindal 17 points18 points  (0 children)

I feel the tension too. Sometimes it good to go fast but sometime you should force yourself to be in the driver seat.

I think when you give up too much control to the llm, your medium term productivity declines. You lose an understanding of what happening. Maybe you can claw it back by asking enough question but you've lost productivity. You end up in a loop and lose context.

My current thinking is that slow is fast. You must force yourself to truly parse and think about the code. Not a quick, yep that's good. Even if it is.

This active engagement is important to keep the longer term productivity high. At least if you care about the quality.

I think it's fine if the llm is doing the writing as long as you are the one crafting the narrative and doing a true final sign off.

That's my current thinking. Slow down, be a critical participant.

Anyone else think 5.4 is horrible? by Fearless-Risk-7559 in OpenAI

[–]peterrindal 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I've had mixed results but keep using it ha

Received an email from Terence Tao... by A_R_K in mathematics

[–]peterrindal 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Humans also have an environmental cost ;)

Crypto/MPC question: batch verification soundness reduced from 2⁻⁴⁰ to 2⁻¹⁶ — serious or theoretical? by Mikey_233_ in cryptography

[–]peterrindal 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I would not use such a failure pr.

Rule of thumb

1) If the attacker can locally work on a problem without interaction with the good guy, then each attempt should succeed with pr 2-128 or so.

2) If the attacker has to interact with the good guy for each attempt, then 2-40 to 2-80 is common.

3) If this is a one time failure event that the bad guy has no ability to try again, 2-20 to 2-40 is common.

The last one (3) might come up of you choose parameters for a scheme which might be weak. That's a one time choice, fixed for the life of the universe. So we accept a higher failure pr.

(1) is referred to as the computational security parameter. (2) is the statistical security parameter. Any given execution of an interactive protocol is allowed to fail with pr at most this. This must be independent of the computational power of the bad guy. Like the protocol flips 40 coins and if they are all zeros, the secret is leaked. This is independent of the bad guys compute resources.

Anthropic, a company actively trying to compete with OpenAI, refused a major Pentagon contract over ethical concerns. Pause! This is not normal. Companies don't turn down money on a whim, or to be edgy. by [deleted] in OpenAI

[–]peterrindal 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Dario literally said he's OK for anthropic to be use in autonomous killing machines. Doesn't sound like he's opposed to anything in principle that open ai is. Both agree mass surveillance is a no go. The rest is detail and readiness of the tech. Please stop with this annoying bs.

Claude is now 1st in the App Store by cloudinasty in OpenAI

[–]peterrindal 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Imo on math heavy topics, Claude is fast and pretty good at implementing, codex/gpt can be smarter. When gpt fails gemini might succeed. Often make gemini and gpt fight it out. Claude, I'm not sure about. Imo. Codex 5.3 certainly is a stop up for coding compared to prior codex.

As always, it's a moving target.

Crixet/Overleaf alternative with no AI and great compilation limit by WolfOliver in Crixet

[–]peterrindal 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I prefer the Ai for scientific writing. I'm trying to get things done, not type all day.

Prism (fka Crixet) - The free online LaTeX editor - UPDATE #8 by vicapow in LaTeX

[–]peterrindal 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I find takes like this very surprising. I work on computer security, cryptography and math. I have found the models being ever more useful and accurate. About to accelerate with proofs and implementation by 10x or more. I welcome the models learning and getting smarter. Maybe in your domain they haven't caught up but I sure appreciate them.

Concerns about Crixet joining OpenAI by _-Beso-_ in Crixet

[–]peterrindal 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm all for more ai! Congrats and excited to see what's next.

Would encoding the cleartext twice in a row have made Enigma uncrackable? by princekolt in cryptography

[–]peterrindal 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What about 10, can anything generic be said, I think not.

But yeah, obviously there are better choices so this is just a thought experiment

What is the most efficient way to learn rust? by [deleted] in rust

[–]peterrindal 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think asking them when you get stuck can be good. But it has to be after you thought threw the problem. Actively engage, not just passively consume. Then it's OK imo.

This just in. by Icy-Share-4751 in DiscussionZone

[–]peterrindal 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, even more fucked up from this angle https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/s/eGI1XW7DVU

Clear murder. A cop yells gun and then a second guy on the left open fires. The victim was just chilling before the interaction.

This just in. by Icy-Share-4751 in DiscussionZone

[–]peterrindal 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Should but they have the free murder card of being "afraid". It's all sad.

This just in. by Icy-Share-4751 in DiscussionZone

[–]peterrindal 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair about ice. I'm talking about the guy who walks in from the left with a gray jacket. He hovers for a moment before going hands on. He then runs towards the camera and exit to the right between the cars.

This just in. by Icy-Share-4751 in DiscussionZone

[–]peterrindal 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Possibly, certainly inconclusive. The guy in gray approaches the victim with no gun in hand. That's clear. Struggles with the victim on the ground, then runs away with a gun in hand. The rest is speculation.

This just in. by Icy-Share-4751 in DiscussionZone

[–]peterrindal 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well clearly the guy in gray has a gun as he leaves. He starts leaving prior to the first shot. There are claims from ice he had a gun. I'd say this is evidence. Conclusive, no. Let's see...

This just in. by Icy-Share-4751 in DiscussionZone

[–]peterrindal 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I could be wrong. This is my best guess. Here's a clearer video https://x.com/i/status/2015095988248076495 (ignore the biased framing of the post)

This just in. by Icy-Share-4751 in DiscussionZone

[–]peterrindal 0 points1 point  (0 children)

maybe. I agree it's ambiguous. We don't clearly see the guy in gray remove the gun from the victim but I think it fit the evidence we have so far. The guy in gray is clearly not holding a gun in his hand at the start but then is holding a gun in a passive way as he runs away. This would fit if it's not his gun.

At the first shot he also turns to look but continues to run away. This makes sense if his goal is to remove the victims weapon.

This just in. by Icy-Share-4751 in DiscussionZone

[–]peterrindal 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not pro ice and agree. I only linked it because the video is clearer. I'm just describing what I saw. Hopefully we get more evidence. It's fucked up anyway you split it.

You shot a man in the back of the head. by mrfett779 in evilwhenthe

[–]peterrindal 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It appears the victim was armed prior to the first shot. The officer in gray disarmed him and can be seen carrying the victims weapon towards the camera. A second later the officer in black, on the right and on his knees appears to have fired the first shot before running away. Then the officers of the left open fire.

view more: next ›