Their privacy policy: https://www.fossify.org/policy/clock/

Quickly filtering out a subset of them to prioritize so that we get the most value possible out of the time that humans spend on it.

LLMs cannot:

• Tell fact from fiction
• Accurately recall data from its training set
• Count

LLMs can

• Translate
• Get the general vibe of a text (sentiment analysis)
• Generate plausible text

Semantics aside, they’re very different skills that require different setups to accomplish. Just because counting is an easier task than analysing text for humans, doesn’t mean it’s the same it’s the same for a LLM. You can’t use that as evidence for its inability to do the “harder” tasks.

Sounds to me like a 50% improvement over zero human eyes.

It certainly would be. Thankfully, there’s many more than zero human eyes involved in this.

Considering that it’s a language task, LLMs exist, and the cost, it’s a reasonable assumption. It’d be pretty silly to analyse a bag of words when you have tools you can use with minimal work with much better results. Even sillier to spend over $200 for something that can be run on a decade old machine in a few hours.

Why not both?

[ up,up,up -> Enter ]

So if I understand this right, his terminal history consists entirely of commands you’ve run to fix his recurring problems.

Same. I keep thinking back to my time TAing for an intro programming course and getting students who just add random braces until their code compiles. That’s me right now with Rust pointers.

I somehow misread “sink” as “shower”. Yeah, I agree with you here.

But it does get rid of the need to reduce splashing

Maybe chickpeas are expensive where you live, or maybe you miscalculated. Either way, take a look at my numbers for comparison.

We can get a 3.63kg bag of chickpeas here for $7.49 (CAD). Assuming you fulfill all your Calorie and protein needs from chickpeas alone (2500 Calories and 150g protein per day), it comes out to about $600/year. That’s $1.64/day. In order to be $10/day, you’d have to pay 6x as much for your chickpeas, so that same 3.63kg bag would have to cost $45.50.

More variety in your diet is likely to always be superior to less. That goes for both kids and adults. The trouble with younger kids is that deficiencies can impact their development and have more severe long term consequences, and they’re also less capable of seeking out foods to fill that gap.

Much faster to skim the contents of an article than a video.

Your comment is a great example of the kind of biases I’m telling everyone to avoid. You misunderstood my initial message, then decided to cling on to that interpretation despite clarifications.

In any case, if you have feedback (e.g. what made the comment unclear, or how you interpreted it), I’d appreciate hearing about it so I can improve my writing. I’m not always aware of the hidden meanings non-autistic people pull out of words that weren’t intended to have any.

https://lemmy.ca/post/28915538/11651615

I’ve rephrased this comment more explicitly and concretely here. Feel free to read through the rest of that thread. I’d rather not repeat myself unless you have something new to add.

I’m here with a toddler who just learned to walk and wants to hold my hand and do laps up and down the hallway for hours at a time. Cute af, but also mind numbingly boring.

You’re stuck on the toilet I presume? Doesn’t sound pleasant. Hope that gets better for you soon.

I wasn’t referring to any of that. I was referring to you jumping on an entirely third party, Samvega, and attacking them of baseless accusations. Which is where I joined the conversation. So that might tell you where I came from, since you’re so interested in context.

I thought Samvega disagreed with me when I said baseless accusations are bad, but they denied it and refused to elaborate, so I have no idea what that’s all about. They have not made any themselves and I never accused them of such.

Your only defense for all of this is, “I just don’t want people to accuse random people of being racist.”

I don’t know what you mean by “defense”. I’m restating my main point.

But you also recognize that hasn’t happened here. So why are you arguing with me?

Yes. It’s often better to prevent a Bad Thing than to fix the consequences after Bad Thing has happened. I don’t understand what you’re disagreeing with.

No. I don’t expect people to reveal everything they hold in their head that could be relevant to the discussion. That would be ridiculous. I do expect people to be wary of their biases and not make assumptions without adequate evidence.

Protist made a very reasonable response to the article given what they knew, and was clear that they didn’t have enough information to make further judgement.

treadful’s response was saying there also isn’t enough evidence to conclude that she isn’t racist. Many would read that as saying she’s probably racist, so my response is intended to curb that bias.

I’m not accusing anyone of making baseless accusations. I am preemptively drawing attention to a common bias and asking people be aware of it and to avoid it.

You understand that not everyone has the same context as you, right? It’s fine to say “[she] made an extremely racist post online” if either

a) you’ve read the post and recognize that it is racist, or

b) someone else who has read the post has informed you that it is racist

It is not okay to make that claim if neither of the above hold. I’m assuming you’ve read it, so if you said she made a racist post, then that’s acceptable. I’ve read it too at this point, so I can say the same. I do not want someone who knows nothing about the situation telling me that she made a racist post.

Well, I’m utterly confused by what you’ve been trying to say, so a clarification would be nice. But I understand if you don’t want to continue the conversation.