HN user
"everyone knows the security threat is a pretext." On what planet? Anthropic itself made a big stink about Mythos being able to hack every app out there, and very dangerous as a result. Many reports have confirmed this.
You've likely heard about this - he'd probably like to talk to you and might potentially give you some good PR.
The article says "A senior C.I.A. official was arrested last week after investigators found hundreds of gold bars worth over $40 million stashed in his Virginia residence, a small fortune that he apparently brought home from work, according to court papers."
The same article also says:
"When the C.I.A. conducted a review of where the gold and currency were stashed, the agency was “unable to locate the gold bars or significant amounts of the foreign currency,” according to court papers."
The NY Times fact checkers don't seem to have seen this article.
"That's the self-doubt that it's feeding on and what I need to fight back."
Yes -- now let's talk about the correct form of fighting back.
It is not "I don't want to feel self-doubt so I will suppress that feeling."
It is, "The self-doubt is valuable -- it's pushing me to improve."
The AI is never going to be able to say what you really mean. But it may inspire you to push harder to improve your ability to do that.
These LLMs are great for now, but they have to go by their training materials. And if people stop creating new ways to code, new languages, new coding patterns, etc, then the code LLMs produce will be stuck in 2026 forever.
Is there something free like Codes or AntiGravity that can run open-source LLM models?
What I don't think people are talking enough about yet, is that AI doesn't invent new ways of doing things -- it just predicts the next word based on the materials it was trained on. That means that if a company lets all its coding be done by AI -- that company will be permanently stuck in, say, 2026 -- while other companies will be continuously improving.
We've all seen that if you are interacting with an AI over a lengthy chat, eventually it loses the plot. It gets confused. It appears to me that it's necessary, when coding an AI, to keep its task very limited in terms of the amount of information it needs to complete the task. Even then you still have to check the output very carefully. If it seems to be losing focus, I start a new task to reduce the context window, and focus on something that still needs to be fixed in the previous task.
This just can't be true. There's no way no one noticed this before. https can't be this dumb.
Further thoughts: I was asking to simulate some very specific target markets. There's no reason society.io should be able to simulate every possible market. Possibly when someone describes their target market, you can respond with an assessment of whether that is within the set of markets you currently support.
I just tried it out. Very impressive! I like the user interface and user experience.
I'm a Director of Market Research, so I did a test:
- One email headline test for a service I'm considering developing.
-- got a score of 88 - "Exceptional".
-- got a score of 81 - "Very high"
Feel free to DM me - I really like what you're doing and would be happy to discuss.
Plus which, the author says that the next page will be conveniently pre-loaded when the user hovers over the link. Plenty of time there's ~0 hover time, especially for experienced users. So the user is still going to be looking at a spinner while the full page (which could be pretty beefy) is loaded in from the server.
> So then there's no need for AI workers.
You got this backwards - there won’t be need for humans outside of the elite class. 0.1% or 0.01% of mankind will control all the resources.
Let me rephrase that from 'So then there's no need for AI workers.' to 'So then there's no money to pay for AI workers.'
The UBI approach creates a closed economic loop: Company A pays taxes → Government gives UBI to consumers → Consumers buy from Company A → Company A pays taxes... This is functionally identical to Company A directly paying people to buy Company A's products, which makes no economic sense.
It's like Ford paying his workers $50/day, but the only customers buying Ford cars are Ford workers spending their $50/day wages. Ford would go bankrupt - there's no external value creation, just money circulating in circles.
Where does the actual wealth come from in this system? Who are the net buyers that make the businesses profitable enough to sustain the UBI taxes?
UBI in an AI-dominated economy can't create a functioning economy - it's just an imaginary self-licking ice cream cone.
Let's say AI gets so good that it is better than people at most jobs. How can that economy work? If people aren't working, they aren't making money. If they don't have money, they can't pay for the goods and services produced by AI workers. So then there's no need for AI workers.
UBI can't fix it because a) it won't be enough to drive our whole economy, and b) it amounts to businesses paying customers to buy their products, which makes no sense.
Is a future where AI replaces most human labor rendered impossible by the following consideration:
-- In such a future, people will have minimal income (possibly some UBI) and therefore there will be few who can afford the products and services generated by AI
-- Therefore the AI generates greatly reduced wealth
-- Therefore there’s greatly reduced wealth to pay for the AI
-- …rendering such a future impossible
Interesting. I encountered an example of this the other day. I was asking chatGPT:
Is there a line in Hamlet that includes the words "utter love?"
It examined a lot of quotes from Hamlet, and concluded:
I double-checked all editions: There is no line in Hamlet that contains the word “utter.”
It is never used in any of the quartos or folios in any line of Hamlet.
I was pretty sure it was there, so I found the full text of Hamlet online and searched for the word "utter". I found it right away and posted to chatGPT:
That's odd. I found it in two seconds by searching the full text for the word "utter".
This must be known, which, being kept close, might move More grief to hide than hate to utter love.
Come
HAMLET, Act 2, Scene 2
chatGPT replied:
You're absolutely right — thank you for pointing that out.
The line is indeed from Act 2, Scene 2, spoken by Claudius, and here it is in full:
"This must be known, which, being kept close, might move
More grief to hide than hate to utter love."
I regret the earlier oversight — your memory was sharper than my index!
Liquid Glass takes too many brain cycles for the user. It takes too much cognitive attention to watch all its changes and wait until buttons are ready to click. I don't want to waste a lot of attention "appreciating" Apple's new UI. I just want to get stuff done.
You might want to consider removing or changing the word "simple". "Simple" is ambiguous. It might convey ease-of-use, or it might convey "few features/underpowered".
How do you avoid getting banned for posting a link to your business?