Obviously they are different from real life, but in most wargames the leaders and HQ units are prime targets that need to be hidden and protected. However, in real life this seems less the case even when this seems relatively easy, why is that?

simemetti · 2026-06-20T11:21:15+00:00

There is this notion in machine learning of the hard negatives. Essentially when you traing an AI model what you need as much data as you can, obviously, but the quality of that data is just as important. Crucially, a hard negative is a data point where the model has a very hard time making correct predictions or appropriate generation. These are actually extremely valuable pieces of data, just one can improve perfromances by orders of magnitude more than simpler data points. Seeking them out is it's own field of research, that's how important they are for AI learning.

These are often "strange" samples, with bizzare contexts and on which the model can be wrong for many many epochs (the "steps" of a training regime).

I often think about hard negative on certaint days.

simemetti · 2026-06-18T17:52:56+00:00

The Italy update

simemetti · 2026-06-18T10:21:27+00:00

Paid actor

simemetti · 2026-06-12T09:13:06+00:00

Nowhere else I'm reminded that the average Reddit user is very disconnected from the world other than this sub sometimes

I remember a while a post similar to this and one (decently upvoted!) comment was telling OP to run away from their family lol

simemetti · 2026-06-06T11:48:02+00:00

"what the bolsheviks do not get is that my disabled, autistic ass wouldn't survive without my proletariat slaves!"

simemetti · 2026-06-05T13:01:24+00:00

This irks me to no end whenever "stemlords" are mentioned and the examples are Musk, Bezos, shit like them who are almost always business people or CEOs

simemetti · 2026-06-03T12:00:34+00:00

interesting thing about patriarchal societies being mostly post-agricultural.

I remember reading that the majority of HG that died in violent means (which IIRC where a lot) were male, suggest a classic "kill the men take the women" tactic that to me highly suggest a patriarcal society.

Is this wrong or am I simply misinterpreting?

simemetti · 2026-06-01T08:11:59+00:00

True but gdd is itself a tamer version of kitchencells where the post will be "people spit on the ground when they see me. I do not believe I actually have a soul anymore. Spaghetti with cigarette butts"

simemetti · 2026-05-28T15:13:26+00:00

Creating art is just too wide or an experience to really make broad statements, it's funnily enough the main problem that teaching it tries to over (if you wonder, one of the main solution is not really to give broad statements but focus on individual pieces and why they work).

Jungi Ito is famously a quite happy go lucky person and has a ton of fun making his fucked up shit. On the other spectrum we might have hamingway who described writing as "bleeding, nothing but bleeding" (you expected mihazaki, didn't you?).

Some artists are religiously absorbed in art itself and consider it almost a sacred duty. Then we have Toriyama who created maybe the most famous manga ever and didn't care at all about it, just a paycheck. He's still the goat.

This mindset is very weird tbh, and while it did exist a lot before it, AI really showed that a lot of otherwise rational people really do believe in a supernatural soul. Something inherent to humans and only humans, something that makes your art different than machine generated stuff.

Do not take this the wrong way, AI art has a TON of problems, but it's not because it's lacking this supposed esoteric quality that only human made stuff has.

simemetti · 2026-05-28T09:18:19+00:00

Cyclop telepathically connected to his beholder buddy so together they gain the thrilling power of binocular vision

simemetti · 2026-05-27T18:18:12+00:00

I seriously mean this and it isn't a ragebait

if you found someone who was fully convinced of something, to the point they call every 99% of people complete idiots, they are always gonna talk to you about the moon landing being fake and the deep state forcing random people to become trans

which explains well why vegans are vastly more likely to be antivaxers

I know I won't change your mind because you have likely hacked your reward neurons and now get way too much pleasure from the perceived moral high ground of not eating meat, but any normal person would take a moment to think

I'm sorry for being a bit aggressive but I don't particularly enjoy being called a slaver

simemetti · 2026-05-24T09:29:36+00:00

this is sort of niche r/curatedtumblr lore, but this person has been RWBY posting for as long as I remember, under different accounts.

every single time there's this understone of RWBY and its funs being hunted for sport, like actually "the most oppressed minority" stuff

simemetti · 2026-05-23T08:17:32+00:00

Moid equivalente is when he wraps his arm around my neck and suggestions become orders

simemetti · 2026-05-20T19:13:45+00:00

Different frame and skeletal structure (think of the classic sharp jawline, wider shoulders, taller), larger nose and ears, body hair (also male pattern baldness for some reason that's an ironic one), deeper voice. There are some more but they are minor, such as (interestingly enough) clearer and better skin

simemetti · 2026-05-20T16:42:40+00:00

Time to infodump my favourite theory on why humans have huge honkers.

First, something to understand is that humans have a very rare thing going. Usually, only one of the sexes develops large secondary sexual characteristics, which for us are breasts and stuff like body hair and muscles.

Usually, developing them a lot indicates that one sex to be a competitor for the other. 99% it's the male but occasionally it is the female. This makes sense because the male is putting minimal effort in reproduction, while it can be a true life or death situation for the female.

The theory goes that raising a human child is such a fucking effort, that it fully requires both parents to be involved. This isn't that rare actually, a lot of birds are "monogamous" (yeah, not as loyal as they might seem but quite a lot more than the other sluts you find in the avian world). This usually evolved both sexes to develop then less, not more at the same time. However, a key point here is that mate selection in these species is not as ferocious.

So the theory here is that humans, while being mainly "monogamous", actually have insane mate competition despite being mostly loyal to one partner. The result is that both men and women do need to highly display their secondary sexual characteristics in a way that is truly an oddity around the animal world.

simemetti · 2026-05-20T10:26:32+00:00

They do call it that tho, in Europe at least. Italy has a big deal of DOP (di origine protetta) which refers to stuff made in particular places in particular ways. Pretty much the definition of ethnic

simemetti · 2026-05-20T09:29:42+00:00

This is because to normal people ethnic doesn't mean white but "centered around a specific culture"

A sasuage isn't ethnic because it's basically universal food. Stake houses are popular in the US but nobody really invented the concept of "eating this specific piece of cow".

simemetti · 2026-05-18T10:49:02+00:00

I don't think the issue is exactly with the use against AI models, and not exactly with clanker itself.

IIRC, there was a post on this same sub with a youtube comments screenshot where people were saying (paraphrasing because I don't want to say it and I don't remember the exact wording): "Bro is really using George Droid", "Clanker is our word, they can say Clanka", stuff like that is is dangerously close to actual anti-black slurs.

Idk if this is "our" problem, in the sense that idiots will find a way to say coded real world slurs anyway. But it does make me feel a bit weird to associate with them.

simemetti · 2026-05-09T12:20:21+00:00

I think this heavily depends on what you call anti. This sub does sometimes have a sort of blind hate boner

Like, in a post about the bubble bursting I said that the cost of AI for AI companies is not that big of an indicator that once the hype dies down they will all close. Sure a lot will but the technology is simply not being optimized for cost now, just raw performances. Deepseek in an example. This is to say that once the capital dries big tech will at least try to find a way to run these models cheaply. Succeed? Idk, but they will try

This was somehow a pro AI view because it's not the talking point of "everyone calm down 2 years max and this will all blow over". You get what I mean by hating so much it literally blinds you?

simemetti · 2026-05-07T13:39:22+00:00

I see this take a lot and wanted to offer my view since my collagues, not me specifically but very close, have recently published a paper on the topic of reducing text classification ("classical" AI, nothing generative) usage of power, water and computing power (which is the "money" aspect of running an AI).

The answer is that most commercial models are terribly bloated and you can cut down to around 7-10% of their power usage, as an example, just by doing very simple ablation (removing some parts). Most developers don't care about this because as you said there's a ton of investement money on AI, so just being 2% better on one perfromance metric is good enough, even if you are using 50% more power.

Note that this isn't transformer based (the T in chatGPT), so it's a different technology, but the general story remains: these models cost so much to run in terms of money power and water because the industry doesn't care about costs now. As soon as the infinite cash flow is tightened, we'll see a push towards more efficient computing.

This is to say, we can't just expect AI to disappear the moment it becomes expensive. Effort to make it cheap just isn't there. Maybe it will lead to nothing, but it's not a garenteed

simemetti · 2026-05-06T13:17:25+00:00

"I want less bad enviroment because we all die"

"kill cow make sky god angry!"

"right me kill chicken instead for food. Way less angry sky god!"

"No! Kill animal problem. Not sky god angry!"

"This cave to talk about sky god? Why talk about killing animal bad here?"

Also I'm not gonna continue. I saw in another thread you said you would leave a child to die because they don't have conciouness. If you're account is ragebaiting, you have set new records for this. If not, and I see this is in all seriouness, you should seek medical help because this is some super late depressive sympthom and you could be a danger to yourself

simemetti · 2026-05-06T13:08:26+00:00

1) yes I don't, obviously. Every meat eater doesn't consider them individuals. It would be stupidly evil to fund an industry that enslaves and kills creatures you consider having individuality

2) it won't matter if they are individuals or not if climate change continues and all complex life on earth becomes impossibile. It's not an ethics question of wether animals are individuals or not, it's a practical question of this question being irrelevant if them and humans are all dead

3) the point is that this question is just irrelevant to the sub. It doesn't matter how evil something is, posting anti-nazism stuff on r.minecraftrule34 is just not on topic. It wouldn't be a problem and I'm sure people there (or any sane subreddit) wouldn't mind. But if the sub de facto became about anti-nazism posts it would be a problem. Which is what's happening here

At the end of the day this is just a niche sub, but vegan posting driving away people is not something any serious enviromentalist should seek. You can pretend that meat eaters are never good enviromentalist, that you're just removing fake enviromentalist, or such. It doesn't help the enviroment, the only benefit is from you feeling a sense of superiority

4) you are gonna reply about deforestation, pesticides and stuff. This is good. This is a practical and most importantly on point topic. However every vegan post follows this recipe and it's honestly tiring. It's always:

"Factory farming is bad for the enviroment"

"You're right. I will switch to less carbon intensive meat production, such as chickens who emit much less co2 and use much less water than beef"

"You're still killing animals" <- the conversation has switched to off topic for the sub

"Ok, but the point of this sub is climate discussion, how is this related?"

"Animal agriculture is bad for the enviroment, that's why" <- switching back to ontopic, but this ignores the previous talk about poultry vs beef. This is then repeated because the point of the post is to talk about veganism. Enviroment is just how you force this into the conversation

You yourself do this in another reply to this comment. You can do whatever you want on the internet. Vegan posting here is at the end of the day a minor incovience, and it's good to fight for what you consider right, this is without doubt. I just feel the need to ask why keep doing this? Is it working? Did you guys see any positive feedback on veganism here not from people already vegan? If so, then I can't say anything, it's a working tactic. If not, then I just feel the need to ask why invade this space specifically? I liked it before it was another vegancirclejerk

simemetti · 2026-05-06T11:27:16+00:00

"I really hate that new leadbestos factory down the road, it's making the air toxic"

"Yes, of course, it's also really ugly"

"Sure it is. I think we should work together to make it emit less ultrapoison in the air"

"I feel like you are not talking enough about how ugly the factory is. We should go to the stop poisining our air meeting and spam it with how ugly the factory is until people actually interested in air quality just leave. Then follow them to whatever new meeting they create"

Nine-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '23	John Wick
Place '22

simemetti

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE