That we're building theories on what's left of mostly-trashed data has scientific implications. Most people hearing LHC proved something probably didn't think a preprocessor threw away most observations first. That layer of interpretation could cause errors.

I wonder how much independent review went into that step.

It's a discussion forum. Saying people are all wrong with no proof comes off as arrogant but isn't helpful. If you have links to examples, you can simply say, "Here's some prior art or previous work in this area you all might like."

People would probably upvote that.

Christians usually only believe in God, angels, humans, and animals. That would mean intelligent UFO's might be angels or demons. While that's speculation, one guy did an interesting test of it.

Non-believers are much more vulnerable to demonic activity than believers. There's also a goal where distracting them from Christ is all they nerd to stay on the road to Hell. So, UFO sightings should be much higher in areas with non-believers than areas with Christians. He shared his data here:

https://web.archive.org/web/20220521004104/https://www.godan...

(Note: I haven't peer reviewed his methodology.)

Nah, they like to lay on the laptop to eliminate their competition. They want all our attention.

Says a biased source selling AI code generators. He's also a liar because he knows many of us reject it due to principles, preferences, to stay mentally sharp, increased legal accountability for suppliers, or avoiding lawbreaking (eg copyrighted works in pretraining).

While I'd use legal AI's, I'll still be writing plenty of code by hand. Most or all if it in some projects. Double true if an inaccuracy or legal dispute would taint the outputs and maybe what they're mixed into.

Those made without agentic tooling are still better. So I don't know that what you said is true in practice even if I agree on its potential.

Something that works, has good diagrams, and the right datatypes. And with HN comments reflecting that.

There's a lot of stuff with basic errors in peer reviewed journals. Things also can get rejected for anything from formatting to politics.

I like Arxiv better. I get the paper, know it's probably not reviewed (like in many journals), and review it if I want to. I used to ise Citeseerx, too, to get tons of CompSci papers. Even better, OpenReview might have some good observations.

They don't make up things for the reason we do. They usually don't have a sense of self, introspection, etc driving their actions. They have no memory like the hippocampus outside some academic prototypes. They don't have a combo of innate and observational knowledge of real-world things grounding their language interpretation.

Their worse than us because the brain God designed is a far better architecture. I also hypothesize it has a hallucination mitigator, maybe several. Authors need to stop repeating the false claim that LLM's are like us.