lukstafi

Karma: 171

lukstafi 26 May 2026 9:51 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: lukstafi’s comment on: LLM Style Slop is Absolutely Everywhere
The simple prompt “Remove LLM mannerisms” makes Claude do a lot of work. I wonder how “LLM Style Slop” should be measured in light of this, should just the final output be called “LLM Slop” and the default output “human user slop”?

lukstafi 1 May 2026 9:41 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: silentbob’s comment on: LLM Style Slop is Absolutely Everywhere
LLMisms (LLM editorializing) serves to slow down reading, in my experience. Long long ago my writing had been meandering, but ever since Steven Pinker’s “The Sense Of Style” I write directly. Short and medium sentences, just the information I want to convey. But with Claude’s writing of our articles, one of my two followers still complains they are dense. So I’m not sure if removing the slow-downs would be objectively better even though I wouldn’t put them in myself.

lukstafi 30 Apr 2026 7:26 UTC
3 points
0
on: LLM Style Slop is Absolutely Everywhere
As someone who publishes LLM written articles (with only around a couple followers though), I am most interested in whether LLMisms are across-the-board negatives, or, on average, readability enhancers. Keeping all else equal, is the text better without “not X but Y” and other editorializing?

lukstafi 13 Aug 2023 15:25 UTC
−1 points
0
on: Stephen Wolfram’s ideas are under-appreciated
People allergic to Stephen Wolfram and criticizing “Wolfram Physics” (e.g. Scott Aaronson) would better contribute to the conversation by reading Jonathan Gorard’s publications, forming their opinion of the content of that published work, and expressing their non-ad-Wolfram criticisms. The broader “culture clash” problem is that Wolfram Physics is a metaphysical theory rather than a physics theory: it explains physics theories such as general relativity and quantum mechanics, rather than explaining a specific physical phenomenon. (Further physics theories can be advanced within Wolfram Physics.)

lukstafi 9 Mar 2022 12:15 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: FinalFormal2’s comment on: Is veganism morally correct?
Moral anti-realists do not claim that people don’t have preferences. Rather, they claim that there are no preference-assumption-free facts regarding preference system comparisons. Therefore moral anti realists will not seek such facts. Moral realists may seek such facts in order to improve/correct their preferences.

lukstafi 2 Mar 2022 9:18 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: TAG’s comment on: Is veganism morally correct?
The implications of moral anti realism for action revolve around pursuing facts to feed into terminal preference updates.

lukstafi 21 Feb 2022 13:04 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: james.lucassen’s comment on: Is veganism morally correct?
“if anti-realism is true, it doesn’t matter [to us] what we do”—that’s false. Whether something does matter to us is a fact independent of whether something ought to matter to us.

lukstafi 29 Nov 2020 16:58 UTC
14 points
0
on: Pain is not the unit of Effort
I recently read David Goggins “Can’t Hurt Me”. On one level it does glorify superhuman pain tolerance. But a constructive perspective on such attitudes is: they illustrate courage. Do not tolerate pain, laugh at it! Do not tense under cold shower, relax into it. Do not bear problems, solve them.

lukstafi 24 Oct 2017 18:23 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: John_Maxwell’s comment on: What Evidence Is AlphaGo Zero Re AGI Complexity?
The general tool: residual networks variant of convolutional NNs, MCTS-like variable-depth tree search. Prerequisites: input can be presented as K layers of N-D data (where N=1,2,3… not too large), the action space is discrete. If the actions are not discrete, an additional small module would be needed to quantize the action space based on the neural network’s action priors.

lukstafi 23 Aug 2015 17:55 UTC
0 points
0
on: Robert Aumann on Judaism
Perhaps a satisfactory answer can be found in “Jewish Philosophy as a Guide to Life: Rosenzweig, Buber, Levinas, Wittgenstein” by Hilary Putnam (who seemed to me to be a reasonable philosopher, but converted to Judaism). I’ve just started listening to its audiobook version, prompted by this post.

lukstafi 17 Dec 2013 20:35 UTC
0 points
0
in reply to: Bayeslisk’s comment on: an ethical puzzle about brain emulation
Reminds me of the error—on charitable reading, of the characters, but perhaps of the author—in “Permutation City”. There’s no such a thing as out-of-order simulation.