I keep seeing this thrown around, but did anyone actually like go out and do this? I feel like I could distinguish between an AI (even the latest models) and a person after a text-only back and forth conversation.
The models you've interacted with have guardrails. If you fine-tuned an LLM with the goal of "convince people you are human" (effectively the opposite of what the major players are doing with their fine-tunes), I am very confident even you would be fooled.
Basically it generates slides from markdown, which is great even without LLMs. But you can get LLMs to output in markdown/Marp format and then use Marp to generate the slides.
I haven't looked into complicated slides, but works well for text-based ones.
Looks interesting. I am on the hunt for clean tools for producing presentations. I really like Powerpoint, mainly because of their animation and vector editing features. However, I don't want to keep using a proprietary tool.
You could also try Hyperdeck which uses Markdown for slides as well, but supports most of the animation features of Powerpoint as well as MathML and stuff like that (no vector editing though)
If you're the coder/hacker type you might like Typst. It's a typesetting tool but it can create presentations too and I like it better than Powerpoint where I have to manually edit and align everything on every page to ensure a consistent style.
Proportional representation is more important than RCV vs approval voting for single-winner elections. And, in the US, multi-winner RCV (single transferable vote) is the most viable approach to achieve that.
> The vast majority of the “subsidies” are “implicit subsidies,” which include “undercharging for environmental costs.” In other words, they are characterizing governments’ failure to impose a carbon tax as a “subsidy” for fossil fuel use.
Before fossil fuels our cities were ankle-deep in horse shit, and when a horse died the owner dumped the carcass in the river. Some level of pollution is in inescapable price of civilization. We shouldn't be reckless or wanton about it but it's unreasonable and uneconomic to ever clean up all of the mess.
All or nothing fallacy. The argument is not to eliminate pollution, the argument is to stop generating greenhouse gases. You can already see the effects of climate change and it's guaranteed to get worse.
I don't understand why you're making excuses for carbon pollution.
Then the same "implicit subsidy" goes for literally every facet of human activity. Do builders of wind turbines and solar farms also pay commensurately for the pollution in the manufacturing and development process?
Everything is implicitly subsidized because every action that any living being takes affects some other living being and the ecosystem as a whole, because we all live on the same planet. It's a meaningless statement.
> Do builders of wind turbines and solar farms also pay commensurately for the pollution in the manufacturing and development process?
Sure, we can assign those costs to builders, why not? There's already lots of discussion about the true cost of EV batteries and how they're subsidized.
> Everything is implicitly subsidized because every action that any living being takes affects some other living being and the ecosystem as a whole, because we all live on the same planet.
Actions don't all have the same effect so I think it's totally fair to consider their true costs.
I think where it gets a little tricky is how you decide to assign costs to people that have children or are children. But that's really getting in the weeds.
> Then the same "implicit subsidy" goes for literally every facet of human activity
No, we generally pay for pollution. If I litter I pay. If I have to throw stuff away I pay (via taxes). If I have to dump dangerous chemicals I pay.
Oil industry can dump whatever they want into the air and they don't pay. You, and I, pay. We don't actually know how profitable oil is because of this.
I think Wikipedia has it wrong actually after reading more closely. It’s not a way to solve the year 10,000 problem, as in a date formatting issue akin to Y2K, as Wikipedia suggests.
Instead it’s to get you thinking of the long term future.
The Wikipedia article does say that is the goal of the Long Now Foundation, but not how the leading 0 is related.
That's also idiotic because we don't put a leading zero in front of 1, 2 or 3 digit years, and neither will future historians put one in front of 4-digit ones - it's just gratuitously annoying.
Charlemagne was crowned in 800 AD, not in 0800 or 00800.
Pompeii was destroyed by the Vesuvius in 79 AD, not 079 or 0079 or 00079.
The battle of the Teutoburg Forest was in 9 AD, not 09, 009, 0009 or 00009.
Also why stop at 5 digits while you're being ridiculous?
I'm happy to expand for others; regardless of my feelings on the matter the Long Now use of a leading zero creates questions and engagement, thus spreading their message under the mantra of "there's no such thing as bad press" | "get the public talking".
It's an Advertising 101 strategy and not at all idiotic save perhaps at the surface of first exposure.
I've been reminded before that comparing hn commentary to reddit or other communities is itself a violation of hn guidelines. You can just upvote/downvote or "tap the sign" by posting the hn guidelines. No need for insinuating the redditization nor twitterization of hn commentary.
what distracts from my technical content is vacuous, aggressive replies to it by people who ask me to take responsibility for their behavior. no, thank you
to you too i ask: which of these two kinds of discourse are you engaging in right now?
if you're capable of the other one, i suggest you demonstrate that
your comment purports to be concerned with the objective qualities of mine: 'pointless', 'distracting', 'provocative'. but actually all of these terms are attempts to recast your subjective preferences as objective realities; all you're really writing about is how you feel when you read my comments. the implicit premise here is that other people ought to be writing their comments in order to satisfy your preferences
why? what makes you so admirable? what reason does anyone in the world have to value your opinion or consider your preferences important? if you want comments written to satisfy your preferences, write them yourself
as far as i can tell, like 38, gruturo, and spencerflem, you're just a person who harasses strangers on internet fora if you think they talk funny, then blames your own behavior on them
you want to know what i feel?
because it sure isn't admiration and eagerness to satisfy you
Dude, they've got a point, your style is annoying and not even right in a "technically correct" sorta way. You don't write things that happened 5 AD as 00005 AD.
Personally, I can take the 0abcd style of years without going crazy, but it definitely derails my reading flow a bit. I would compare it to writing personal names without capitals, like donald trump.
But I also know that it is kragen commenting without looking at the header :)
I pay for both, use them for different things, but to be clear, fastmail does not have the encryption features that ProtonMail does. Not a direct replacement if you’re interested in the privacy aspects.
I keep seeing this thrown around, but did anyone actually like go out and do this? I feel like I could distinguish between an AI (even the latest models) and a person after a text-only back and forth conversation.
reply