"It won't be the best [...]" therefor there is a difference that you recognize. You don't have to add these caveats and qualifiers to open-source projects. Everyone can freely use open-source projects. Not everyone can freely use proprietary LLMs. So there is a blatant difference.

You're absolutely right! There was a crime. I appreciate the course correction—it’s a significant oversight on my part. I've updated our previous plan to better reflect that a crime occurred. You're under arrest.

which can then translate to real-world money points

How would karma on HN lead to this?

You need a minimum threshold of karma in order to downvote others on HN. Additionally, accounts with more well received activity are harder to identify as shills. That's why there are black markets where social media accounts are bought and sold and the price is typically proportional to the account's karma.

TLDR: "Just do it." ~ Nike

You didn't state any complex tasks though. You only stated programmers who use LLMs.

i thought it was implied, guess not.

Great programmers wouldn't support or back AI if it couldn't handle complex tasks. AI can handle complex tasks inconsistently when operating on it's own. They can handle complex tasks consistently when pair programming with a human operator.

Urgent updates can be necessary every once in a while but should be recognized as technical failures on the part of the developers. Failure can be forgiven, but only so many times. The comments saying "what about X update that had this feature I need?" are missing the point entirely. Instead ask yourself about all of the updates you've made without even looking at the patch notes, because there are just too many updates and not enough time. Instead of blaming the producers for creating a blackbox relationship with the consumers, we blame the consumer and blindly tell them to "just update." That's what needs to change. It's a bit similar to opaque ToS issues.

66% accuracy is not "great" and definitely not the best there's ever been.

If they aren't great then neither are doctors and the word becomes meaningless.

Context is important. 66% accuracy on cases that stumped doctors and took extensive testing is not trivial. It's not the same as 66% accuracy for everyday diagnosis.

The study references "clinicians" rather than "doctors." Clinicians include psychologists, pharmacists, nurses, physicians, paramedics, etc.

Point still stands.

Expert system diagnostic tools aren't that great.

for perspective, here's what 500k gallons (~0.04% of the eruption) of water vapor looks like: https://youtu.be/BIpeNs5OWbo?t=103

Aren't you on an alternative right now?

how were those moderators chosen the first time around? what's to prevent them from repeating that selection process? it might take a bit of work but the circumstances seem to merit at least that much.

The person who makes the subreddit is the head mod; they can add others. Some subs do voting, or solicit nominations for new mods.

thanks. is the nomination and voting a built in reddit feature? if so, this sounds like a good time to use it.

No, it just happens in the sub as a normal thread - the mods make a post saying they're looking for more mods, people respond. Some subs do the voting offsite, sometimes the mods just pick someone to add.

oh wow. that seems like the sort of critical feature reddit should have built in.

That would require Reddit to write code that meaningfully improves the site, rather than custom emojis and NFT nonsense.