No, I don't see the point.
No, I don't see the point. I never said anything about tasteless hyperbole, idle stupid chatter on facebook, criticizing others' religions, or advocating for sedition. Obviously there are times where those things are beneficial. (Since my reply you added some other things that I never brought up. Include them as well.) I was just wondering, is it ever beneficial to advocate for murder? If it is not beneficial, why do we need to protect it? So far as I understand you, your answer is: we need to protect it because it's the law. I know that it's the law. I am asking, why do we need that law, when it comes to advocacy for murder? Are you saying that if we ban advocacy for murder, soon we'll be banning other things that do have some arguable benefit? If that is what you are saying, why is there no middle ground where we can just stop at banning advocacy for murder? Note (again): in the specific case of advocacy for terrorism, we did ban advocacy for murder.
Posted by cactusface on Jun 20, 2015, 4:31 AM
Tags
Related issues
- The biggest problem with having an LLM do this, from what I've observed of at least frontier models, is that the way they are trained...
- The biggest problem with MOND is that it was hand-crafted with additional parameters simply to fit the data.
- (My comment is about detached houses).
- The biggest problem with this is that I can't run my company's own internal benchmarks against this API, because they will be trained int...
- > steer Claude away from over-engineering parts of the system in response to hypothetical concerns.
- Why is there no comparison with FLUX 3 Image?
Raise real-world problems, find people facing the same issue, and discuss solutions.6,000 issues0 comments
hackernews (Other)
The biggest problem with having an LLM do this, from what I've observed of at least frontier models, is that the way they are trained...
The biggest problem with MOND is that it was hand-crafted with additional parameters simply to fit the data.
(My comment is about detached houses).
The biggest problem with this is that I can't run my company's own internal benchmarks against this API, because they will be trained int...
> steer Claude away from over-engineering parts of the system in response to hypothetical concerns.
Why is there no comparison with FLUX 3 Image?
> our Git monorepo was developing an annoying problem Sentences like this are so common from people using monorepos that I am convinced ...
Why is there no contact form?
No, I don't see the point.
No, I don't see the point. I never said anything about tasteless hyperbole, idle stupid chatter on facebook, criticizing others' religions, or advocating for sedition. Obviously there are times where those things are beneficial. (Since my reply you added some other things that I never brought up. Include them as well.) I was just wondering, is it ever beneficial to advocate for murder? If it is not beneficial, why do we need to protect it? So far as I understand you, your answer is: we need to protect it because it's the law. I know that it's the law. I am asking, why do we need that law, when it comes to advocacy for murder? Are you saying that if we ban advocacy for murder, soon we'll be banning other things that do have some arguable benefit? If that is what you are saying, why is there no middle ground where we can just stop at banning advocacy for murder? Note (again): in the specific case of advocacy for terrorism, we did ban advocacy for murder.
Comments (0)
No comments yet. Start the discussion.