Rendered at 11:45:18 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
tkdb 14 hours ago [-]
Sperm whales may be one of the only living animals that can communicate to each other via sound waves virtually anywhere on the planet.
In 1960, Jane Goodall observed chimps using tools, a trait that humans thought unique to us. We now know well over 100 animal species show evidence of tool use, distributed among mammals, birds, fish, reptiles, insects, arachnids, crustaceans, mollusks and echinoderms.
Ants and bees "domesticate" plants and animals.
Tiny frogs are spider cats! (great meme, amazing symbiosis)
Planthopper nymphs employ interlocking gears built into their exoskeletons to synchronize explosive jumps. Caddisfly larvae use pebbles and the same cementitious effect we use for our buildings to construct protective tubes.
The more we look, the more we find remarkable traits and abilities in the life we share this planet with.
The idea that whales, whose brains near-equal and in some ways exceed our own (depending on how you measure), may use a sort of language is not outlandish at all.
> Don’t post generated text or AI-edited text. HN is for conversation between humans.
I was and still am under the impression this is okay given the above guideline.
guiambros 7 hours ago [-]
In my opinion using an AI system to judge an AI system is perpetuating slop.
If you read the article and thought it was superficial, then say so. Constructive criticism is helpful for others, including the author. But simply copying and pasting from LLMs (including Pangram) is not much better than the the alleged slop you're implying in OP's submission.
More specifically, I read the article and felt it was a bit shallow, but still appropriate quick intro to Dr. Gruber and his work at Project CETI. A better link would be to Project CETI [1] directly.
I've seen a talk by Dr. Gruber and briefly spoke with him, and was mind-blown by what they're trying to accomplish. If they continue making progress, may be a decade or two away from achieving inter-species communication. Just think about it for a minute: if we manage to communicate with whales (or any other non-human species for that matter), we'd have massive philosophical, ethical, and even legal implications.
> using an AI system to judge an AI system is perpetuating slop
Yeah, this is just ignorance. I'm not against using AI systems.
https://rfd.shared.oxide.computer/rfd/0576 does a good job of summarizing the problem with AI writing specifically this part: "If, however, prose is LLM-generated, this social contract becomes ripped up: a reader cannot assume that the writer understands their ideas because they might not so much have read the product of the LLM that they tasked to write it. If one is lucky, these are LLM hallucinations: obviously wrong and quickly discarded. If one is unlucky, however, it will be a kind of LLM-induced cognitive dissonance: a puzzle in which pieces don’t fit because there is in fact no puzzle at all. This can leave a reader frustrated: why should they spend more time reading prose than the writer spent writing it?"
In 1960, Jane Goodall observed chimps using tools, a trait that humans thought unique to us. We now know well over 100 animal species show evidence of tool use, distributed among mammals, birds, fish, reptiles, insects, arachnids, crustaceans, mollusks and echinoderms.
Ants and bees "domesticate" plants and animals.
Tiny frogs are spider cats! (great meme, amazing symbiosis)
Planthopper nymphs employ interlocking gears built into their exoskeletons to synchronize explosive jumps. Caddisfly larvae use pebbles and the same cementitious effect we use for our buildings to construct protective tubes.
The more we look, the more we find remarkable traits and abilities in the life we share this planet with.
The idea that whales, whose brains near-equal and in some ways exceed our own (depending on how you measure), may use a sort of language is not outlandish at all.
Don't waste your time.
One might ask if you are doing as much as you engage in this righteous journey of checking articles for everyone
Looks to be something new in the last two weeks. What changed for you?
> Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.
I want to remind you - and myself - of this HN guideline. I've probably been edging this one lately too
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> Don’t post generated text or AI-edited text. HN is for conversation between humans.
I was and still am under the impression this is okay given the above guideline.
If you read the article and thought it was superficial, then say so. Constructive criticism is helpful for others, including the author. But simply copying and pasting from LLMs (including Pangram) is not much better than the the alleged slop you're implying in OP's submission.
More specifically, I read the article and felt it was a bit shallow, but still appropriate quick intro to Dr. Gruber and his work at Project CETI. A better link would be to Project CETI [1] directly.
I've seen a talk by Dr. Gruber and briefly spoke with him, and was mind-blown by what they're trying to accomplish. If they continue making progress, may be a decade or two away from achieving inter-species communication. Just think about it for a minute: if we manage to communicate with whales (or any other non-human species for that matter), we'd have massive philosophical, ethical, and even legal implications.
[1] https://www.projectceti.org/
Yeah, this is just ignorance. I'm not against using AI systems.
https://rfd.shared.oxide.computer/rfd/0576 does a good job of summarizing the problem with AI writing specifically this part: "If, however, prose is LLM-generated, this social contract becomes ripped up: a reader cannot assume that the writer understands their ideas because they might not so much have read the product of the LLM that they tasked to write it. If one is lucky, these are LLM hallucinations: obviously wrong and quickly discarded. If one is unlucky, however, it will be a kind of LLM-induced cognitive dissonance: a puzzle in which pieces don’t fit because there is in fact no puzzle at all. This can leave a reader frustrated: why should they spend more time reading prose than the writer spent writing it?"