This is how law develops, no?

HF falls under French jurisdiction, right? Couldn’t a case be made over there?

Makes you wonder why exactly Nvidia bought them, right ?

perhaps onion2k meant that openAI could’ve reimplemented it once in-house on their side for the codex app?

Omarchy is an agent first experience, no? just ask your agent!

[1] > A radio device at BBC did all this and not humans?

Technology mediates (human) agency.

[2] > My argument is that radio is a medium through which humans communicate. An LLM is not.

KaiserPro's argument is that radio (a one-way medium) mediates how humans communicate (phonetically), thus influencing how people speak.

Now that does not explain how the printing press and radio have influenced word choice (both of which I would like to see examples of!)

[3] > I can't remember any radio determining words or adjusting grammar of the person speaking through it.

Now media themselves did not really have something that looked like the kind of pseudo-agency that LLMs seemingly have. There may be some kind of qualitative leap.

If you add enough heat, pressure and (geological) time it becomes coal!

Differs when I ran a local DeepSeek model.

You also get to see the <thinking /> tokens.

Looks like Graebers bullshit jobs, right?

  1. https://davidgraeber.org/articles/on-the-phenomenon-of-bullshit-jobs-a-work-rant/
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs
  3. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/david-graeber-bullshit-jobs

Methane traps far more heat than CO2 before oxidizing back into it.

That doesn’t change the fact that you’re selectively counting only one side of a closed loop process. Methane may be a more efficient greenhouse gas than CO2 but if that effect dominated, we would expect to see the global warming trend start with the evolution of ruminants, not the Industrial Revolution (a time when the North American ruminant population actually declined a significant amount!)

Modern WAIS-IV-type tests yield multiple factor scores: IQ is arguably non-scalar.

The original theory was precisely that there's a general factor ("g").

If you run anything sufficiently complex through a principal component analysis you'll get several orthogonal factors, decreasing in importance. The question then is whether the first factor dominates or not.

My understanding is that it does, with "g" explaining some 50% of the variance, and the various smaller "s" factors maybe 5% to 20% at most.

Those sub-scores BTW are very helpful in indicating or diagnosing learning disabilities. Folks with autism or adhd can have very different strength / weaknesses in intelligence.