But on a much more serious note, the violating/breaking of the guardrails when making bombs is terrible. I'd have called it unforgivable, but LLMs are a tough beast to tame in the best of situations... and I'm not really sure if chatgpt ever deserved to be forgived.
It's also ironic that Fable hits guardrails for nothing, and a literal terrorist group is making bombs and merrily skipping over guardrails.
> That seems the most charitable way to interpret your post. And I'm really trying.
Ps, if you're genuinely curious, I can share a link where I got Gemini 3.1 Pro (at max thinking) to analyse this chat as neutrally as I could. Seeing as Gemini had an easier time than you did, maybe it could give you some help?
I'm intrigued (but unfortunately not surprised) by the downvote.
I suspect it's primarily due to folks missing nuance/misinterpreting thing (and/or getting emotional and running off with it).
I ran a thread to analyse hidden/missed nuance - where I tried to be as "neutral" as possible (by never identifying myself), if someone's genuinely interested I can share the link. (Hint: Gemini 3.1 Pro at max thinking mode in AI Studio says others are missing a point/some nuance.)
> What an irony. Their country is being invaded. Their families are being affected and killed. Their land is being taken. The goal is to end their country.
And what does that have to do with anything I was talking about?
I'm talking about "Shit, it's bad to dehumanise war even more".
Are you saying "No, that's a good thing if your country is under attack"?
Because if you're actually wanting to say "It's a fucked up situation for them", then, yeah, I agree... and I've never said anything to the contrary? Are we on the same page then, or not?
> The comparison to CoD in particular is so deeply egregious.
So you're saying this war isn't the closest we've been to a gamified war perhaps ever in human history?
If you're saying "we shouldn't be crying about gamification because there are more important things as their country's at stake", well, there are more humans dying of hunger every day than in Ukraine, so therefore the EU should put all its funds supporting Ukraine into reducing global hunger? By that logic??
Please, if you're a grown adult, have the nuance and the maturity to show it. Multiple things can be issues at the same time, and calling one out doesn't make the other justified - because that's what it feels like you're accusing me of. And please feel free to correct me if I've said anything wrong (or if you disagree with any of my options.)
Also I just wanted to add - I'm nowhere claiming this is a cushy job for Ukrainian drone operators who won't get PTSD due to it being via a screen.
In my original comment, I had said
> this is way more similar to CoD or any other shooting game than it has ever been in human history, and by a significant amount.
I'm saying it's far closer to CoD. It's absolutely still fucked up, regardless of whether you're an operator or a family of someone on the frontline. But I'm not claiming it's identical to a game.
Unfortunately I'm too tired to give a more thought out reply at this time of the night, but there were a few things I wanted to add.
To clarify at the outset, I full understand your view and partly agree with it.
I just had some thoughts, and was reminded of something while reading your comment.
> All technological improvements will seem to have the effect of dehumanizing people...
> Where technology creates greater moral hazards in war is when it helps insulate the leadership and population from the consequences of war, and so lowers the sociological and political costs to violence...
These were also the results of the invention of the gatlin gun.
A gun made by the creator to save lives.
Of course, if you now can shoot 100 times as many bullets, you don't use 1/100th as many men, you just shoot 100x bullets.
Which... yeah. I wish I had a solution, but I don't. And obviously no one's going to ramp down their own death causing machines™ when the enemy has no incentive to. (Nuclear proliferation was probably only sucessful mainly because of the high level of difficulty in both the processes as well as material sourcing.)
> Debates over e-points, to me, reflect a failure to appreciate the reality...
I don't think the debate (at least not from my side) is over e points; it's more "shit, war's already terrible, and this is even more dehumanising".
> ...yet seem to assume soldiers watching a drone video feed feel no different than playing a video game...
I never implied that in the slightest. My ire is primarily directed at the people making the system, which almost certainly are folks at higher ranks - not the average soldier. I fully understand humans are human(e).
> Especially in the beginning I forced myself to watch the videos, just so I wouldn't get lost in abstraction. The human suffering is gut wrenching. You can watch men getting shredded down; soldiers embracing each other in fear and helplessness moments before they're killed or maimed.
I have also watched many of these absolutely messed up videos; but I am absolutely not convinced that the e-points system reduces this suffering in any way. Psychological distance absolutely can make it "easier" to kill, and perhaps a man with a broken down tank was already effectively a "Hors de Combat" but if you shoot him you get 12 points, and...
I think something fundamentally new is not only the incentivisation directly affecting kills - as a top team/unit can iterate up much faster, unlike a soldier who could boast more kills, but still have the same rifle as his colleagues - but the layers and desensitisation overall.
Part of this probably admittedly isn't new, and likely started with drones, where you could kill someone in Iraq sitting in DC, on the other side of the world.
But now with both, being separated from the physicality, and the incentives via points (the same way arguably in app currencies are used in gacha games - "20 tokens for this character!" feels better than $40), this is way more similar to CoD or any other shooting game than it has ever been in human history, and by a significant amount.
Sorry for the rambley and extremely verbose reply but tbh it's absolutely horrifying and sickening to see as a fellow human, and I just wanted to get it out. (I'm obviously not saying Ukraine is wrong for wanting to protect territory - but it's the other aspects that are "awesome" (or awe-full?), in the wrong way of awe.)
The thing is, it becomes a slippery slope. It's "corp accounts are pre vouched today", "non corp accounts are temporarily suspended for a few days during some downtime", to "we've decided to only allow corp accounts going forward".
Oh, Anthropic, the company that hoover'd up everyone else's data, and is now unhappy when others are doing to it what it did to others? The same Anthropic?
> China aren't offering a cheaper solution. They are subsidizing an existing one (which is already subsidized) in order to gain foothold.
In my economics classes, we were told that (in a "free market" argument) the best thing to do if a subsidy is making something you want cheaper is to use it. You're getting your thing, and at a reduced cost.
(I'm not really replying to you per se, I'm curious how "free market" folks in these comments would respond to this.)
Typically, in places like NTSB reports (or GA - private aviation - accidents in general), it often is human preventable. But the thing is different people have very different tolerance limits.
Pilot A might skip flying if the weather looks bad. Pilot B might go "well the storm's actually only at x location on my route, I'll fly around it". Pilot C might insist on more fuel but take the flight.
I'm not pretending it's possible to avoid (all) accidents with enough care - but if you look at NTSB stats, a vast majority of accidents were things that were quite easily avoidable.
Getting an instrument rating, flying in a plane with a weather radar that can go high (pressurized, beyond 40,000 feet or whereabouts), having another spare pilot and spare engine, and following the "big boy" scheduled airline (part 121) protocols and rules and minimums will almost certainly help avoid 50%+ (very conservatively) of GA accidents causes.
Yes, you still need to be careful and not fall victim to things like Get-there-itis (which pushes pilots to fly when they shouldn't because they want to get there). However... it's a swiss cheese model of accident avoidance. Remove as many factors from your side as you can, do your checklists, IMSAFE etc, and you're very likely to be (physically) okay.
Oh, and get a Cirrus with a parachute while we're at it. They've got auto land on their new planes too iirc.
Yeah, similar. The place I was in in the Netherlands was a converted office building (originally made iirc in the 1960s or 70s) but refurbished to apartments post the turn of the century.
In the many years I lived there... the place was pretty much identical. Sure, it'd probably need a deep clean for the (faux?) wooden floor that gets dirt into the crevices... but that's it?
Even back home in India, we've lived in buildings made around the 1990s iirc. They're perfectly fine, and apart from outdated floor plans, there's nothing problematic about their age at all.
Though, I just remembered one thing. In India, everything is made of concrete, and even in NL, beyond the outer concrete walls, the inner walls - even though often drywall-like - are very "high quality". They're extremely soundproof and fireproof (the latter of which I unfortunately learnt post a fellow neighbour's fire. Their room was burnt down to the bedframe, the neighbours were just fine. Never leave your cooking unattended, folks!)
To be brutally honest it sounds like LLM speak to me. The account being in green doesn't help.
The line between an LLM being told to sound like an HN user, and an actual user who's adopted LLM lingo is... vanishingly thin at times. I myself accidentally find myself using such phrases, I can hardly accuse others.
Email: [email protected]
user_7832.at.hn