HackerLangs
トップ新着トレンドコメント過去質問紹介求人

qarl2

14 カルマ登録 20 日前
Hackernews is now censoring my main account (qarl) because, according to them, my writing sounds too much like AI and it makes people angry. I tried to explain this is a form of ad hominem, but then they got angry too and stopped talking to me.

I have created this new account so that I may continue to provide my legitimate (albeit unpopular) arguments and opinions.

コメント

qarl2
·4 時間前·議論
Ah... is this just the difference between a constructive and non-constructive proof? Is that the distinction you're making?
qarl2
·6 時間前·議論
Right. I think I understand - this question was expected to produce a new theory and the clever solution avoided that.

Like I said below, I think this is a fantastic result. It discovered that this question really wasn't asking the right question. That's a determination that has eluded the humans examining the problem - and a real step forward - albeit not the hoped-for step.

No?
qarl2
·6 時間前·議論
Hmmm... seems to me that if you can find a solution without creating the desired explanation - then that's a problem with the original question - not the solution itself.

And discovering a bad question leads to the correct question. No?
qarl2
·6 時間前·議論
> However, it seems the proof is extremely concise so it seems that it is exploiting a clever trick that somehow all the experts missed.

Why is that a "however"? My reading is that it found a genuinely new solution that is both elegant and previously missed.

Seems like exactly the kind of result a human mathematician would aspire to.
qarl2
·昨日·議論
I really like the laws just passed in Oregon to protect regular folk from energy prices. From the sounds of it - energy prices will DECREASE for the average person.

https://www.opb.org/article/2026/07/07/oregon-data-center-ge...
qarl2
·昨日·議論
https://archive.is/ibBkO#selection-3939.0-3939.70
qarl2
·一昨日·議論
Is it? I've always felt that the idea is worth more than the implementation. Implementation is tedious and not really genius.

Regardless, I'm just happy to have these things at my disposal now. I don't need to be the one writing the code.

I don't need to make the wings to enjoy flying.
qarl2
·一昨日·議論
Yeah. :)

Since the advent of AI I have been delighted by the number of old project ideas I've been able to execute. There are just too many ideas to implement them all by yourself - but AIs don't seem to mind in the least.

It's a brave new world.
qarl2
·一昨日·議論
You should read the part of the article where the author compares his work to Stan.
qarl2
·3 日前·議論
Be warned - by using AI like this you've made yourself a lightning rod for the people who really really really dislike AI.
qarl2
·4 日前·議論
Yes. That's why I said "expectation".
qarl2
·4 日前·議論
It's just mathematical expectation.

Don't look at the simple probability - look at probability * value.
qarl2
·5 日前·議論
Hey.

Stop stalking me. It's creepy as fuck. Be better.
qarl2
·5 日前·議論
> Zuckerberg knows that threatening Wynn-Williams for standing in wooden silence on a stage makes him look like history's most guillotineable billionaire.
qarl2
·8 日前·議論
> I can’t tell if Zuckerberg is dimwitted or just evil.

I can.
qarl2
·14 日前·議論
It doesn't matter why. Many people choose to do it that way. And if you want them to use your software, you need to enable them.

But to answer your question directly - I suspect they simply don't care, and just take the easiest way.
qarl2
·14 日前·議論
Oh yes, I agree completely. But apparently Paul Graham does not - and his whim is law.
qarl2
·14 日前·議論
Ah. That's a shame... as there is no button or indicator for "mild".

Making the behavior for "I disagree" and "this is erroneous" the same seems like a problematic design.
qarl2
·14 日前·議論
Why am I being downvoted for stating my reasonable opinion?
qarl2
·15 日前·議論
> That does not mean "I used it via emailing it". There is no ambiguity - he was asked specifically about this.

On the contrary - I think the most reasonable interpretation of his words is that he did use it via emailing it. But like I said at the beginning, I could be wrong. It will be interesting to see what he says when he returns to the conversation.

> Once again, I reiterate, an agent processing email that rejects every single one passes the test that the OP created, but then it can't do anything useful either.

No one is contesting that point, only that it is applicable.