23
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2024
23 points (100.0% liked)
TechTakes
1494 readers
56 users here now
Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.
This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.
For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
found this linked in ed zitron comment section for some reason: https://www.funraniumlabs.com/2024/04/phil-vs-llms/
joke's on you, MSDSs are already dogshit. these things only exist to cover ass of manufacturers and are filled with generic, useless advice https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/uselessness-msds https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/un-safety-data-sheets there is MSDS for sand, MSDS for tear gas and ethanol lists the same dangers, toxicity is overemphasized (because it's common) and some other dangers like explosiveness are underappreciated (because it's not), we don't even need LLMs for this, humans (lawyers mostly i guess) did the same on accident
also bonus points for first-principling what could have been instead of asking somebody that actually knows, like any proper rationalist would do. also, vinyl chloride is not reactive with water and spraying pressurized containers with water can be a sensible thing to do, because this cools them down, so it decreases pressure meaning it decreases risk of rupture, which would be a bad thing, if manageable for firefighters to do it safely. see: some fires involving propane tanks
Slander! MSDS will tell you to use the right one ("appropriate respirator"), it's your job to figure out what it is
one of those cases of "minimum legally required" type of things? maybe with a dash of "the specification and requirements were written ${time} ago and haven't evolved a lick since then, despite much shift in industry and progress"?
there are no real enforced requirements of accuracy, most of typical known hazards are covered by generic useless advice and everything else is just filled by "no information"
ah, vibes-based danger diamonds
it's less of this and more of prop65 the size of rationalist footnote
actual pictograms are not vibes based, there are thresholds for toxicity, flash point etc
You know, I would expect the at-a-glance symbolic information to be more useful just from sheer accessibility. But I never would have expected them to be more accurate and rigorous than the detailed safety sheets.
MSDS is a multi-page document that is mostly filled with boilerplate, but you could expect some more detailed precautions and instructions, like for example in case of HF burn apply calcium gluconate cream, use special glass for diazomethane because it can explode in contact with ground glass surface, pay special attention around whatever-class of compounds because these are potent sensitizers, or such. most of the time it's not there, because people that write it never used these compounds, and people that do don't read that and don't need reminder after that detailed advice propagated to them via what is basically folk tales from labmates. it's more useful to have a comprehensive chemical engineering handbook or similar resource (as searchable pdf) that has listed dangers for common dangerous reagents
from that second link upthread:
Po-tay-toh, po-tah-toh, still better than an LLM directly endangering you with bad advice
as if we needed LLMs for that. at least two of my profs have abstract tattoos left from experimenting with homemade explosives when they were in high school
as reminders? or are they just that metal?
(e: mostly unsure whether you mean ink or scartissue with “abstract tattoos”)
sorry if that was unclear, metal acetylides that they played with when ignited give off a cloud of fine metal particles and soot, they had hands close enough that these particles got embedded in their skin, permanently. so basically tattoo ink but explosively deposited
ah, gotcha. so, metal, but not quite the type I had in mind! no worries on the initial confusion, was just not entirely sure what you meant wrt mechanism
I lolled.