upvote

points

by jstummbillig10 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby prodigycorp9 hours ago|
next
[-]
The burden of proof is on the author to provide at least one type of eval for making that claim.
reply
upvoteby jstummbillig9 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I notice that the number of people confidently talking about "burden of proof" and whose it allegedly is in the context of AI has gone up sharply.

Nobody has to proof anything. It can give your claim credibility. If you don't provide any, an opposing claim without proof does not get any better.

reply
upvoteby prodigycorp9 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Sorry I don't know how engaging in this could lead to anything productive. There's already literature out there that gives credence to TeMPOraL claim. And, after a certain point, gravity being the reason that things fall becomes so self evident that every re-statements doesnt not require proof.
reply
upvoteby xgulfie8 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
LLM quirks are not something all humans have been experiencing for thousands of years
reply
upvoteby jmye6 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
> Nobody has to proof anything. It can give your claim credibility

“I don’t need to provide proof to say things” is a valueless, trivial assertion that adds no value whatsoever to any discussion anyone has ever had.

If you want to pretend this is a claim that should be taken seriously, a lack of evidence is damning. If you just want to pass the metaphorical bong and say stupid shit to each other with no judgment and no expectation, then I don’t know what to tell you. Maybe X is better for that.

reply
upvoteby systoll9 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
The author pretended they addressed the obvious criticism.

You can read the skill. They didn't do anything to mitigate the issue, so the criticism is valid.

reply
upvoteby getpokedagain9 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
In the age of vibe coding and that we are literally talking about a single markdown file I am sure this has been well tested and achieves all of its goals with statistical accuracy, no side effects with no issues.
reply
upvoteby samusiam8 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
> I have no clue if this claim holds, but alas, just pretending they did not address the obvious criticism, while they did, is at the very least pretty lazy.

But they didn't address the criticism. "cutting ~75% of tokens while keeping full technical accuracy" is an empirical claim for which no evidence was provided.

reply