blargey

There may be something(s) about mathematics (proofs) that makes it particularly amenable to LLM reasoning - highly inductive from facts that are explicitly within-context/associative space? Being an unusually well documented discipline in general, with less influence from tacit knowledge or idiosyncratic “it works however the opinionated human made it work +- bugs” processes? Something about simulating even the smallest non-pure-inductive leaps necessarily risking simulating mistakes due to the nature of context “perception”?

"Better pay for artists" by replacing as much art production as possible with AI prompting is the most insane canard I've heard in a long time.

The whole "AI is trash at writing (my job), but for the audio/visual stuff (their job) it's a great cost-saver!" thing is just...beneath contempt.

Goes to show human review doesn't amount to anything if the reviewer is blind to the flaws they're supposed to catch, whether they're going over video gens or a self-aggrandizing puff piece.

Spoken like someone that never even had to try. Neither of those can physically mitigate spikes of noise from engines, exhausts, or subs, and will only cause more harm if the noise floor is low.

Why spend three paragraphs insisting on the innocence of your motives when you’re just going to fall back on “fuck you suck it up” when pressed on the consequences of your actions?

Your nuanced hobby and aesthetics is reduced to “stupid loudness” in people’s minds because the primary interaction other people have with it is “I am being subjected to stupid loudness”, yes.

The subprime crisis was a story of perverse financial incentives causing the industry to play along with a fig-leaf statistical excuse for overrating derivative products, not bond raters botching ratings or missing "common-knowledge" info about specific mortgages.

If you want to suggest the subprime crisis as a mechanism for SpaceX bonds getting mispriced, you need to propose a model for how bond evaluators could be operating under a perverse incentive to under-rate it and somehow reap profits from doing so.

...which is why we got comically disastrous system-prompt-level attempts to "correct" this once a quarter last year (I haven't kept tabs this year, and most submissions referencing grok "incidents" get flagged off HN quickly, for better or for worse)

I wouldn't trust XAI to refrain from attempting such "alignment" with proper training techniques, in ways that won't result in obvious gaffes.

The impulse to “counter” this statistic as part of an imagined debate over who’s “winning” is likely to be driving this public health issue, yes.

A manic riff on https://xcancel.com/OpenRouter/status/2065856853989270011 , which advertises https://openrouter.ai/fusion/1 , which is a (slow) multi-model multi-prompt workflow that's specific to the "DRACO" benchmark for "deep research", and doesn't say much about coding and long-horizon agentic work, nor does it imply you can somehow parlay this into duct-taping 50 budget-tier models together for even more gains. Not even sure what "solo" even means in the context of the comparison chart - oneshot? Variant workflow since it doesn't make sense to run on one input?

Mixing outputs of different models one way or another is old news, if it were anywhere near as promising as the author dreams it would have exploded many months ago.

American "tolerance" has its merits, but a guest does not "tolerate" or "accept" their hosts.

Being oblivious to the cultural norms and tastes of your environs is, quite literally, being taste-less in that place/context.

Culinary turmeric is about ~3% curcuminoids by weight (and only 60-70% of that is curcumin specifically). Curcumin also has low oral bioavailability, typically offset by taking a large dose (1000mg) and combining with piperine - even ignoring the piperine, that 1g of curcumin amounts of 66g of turmeric.

The average Indian household does not use 60g of turmeric per person per day. More like 1.5-2g per person per day, or ~30mg of curcumin, and without much to improve absorption.

Curcumin can, in fact, interact with anticoagulants and affect iron absorption at high supplemental doses, which is not a concern at culinary amounts.

There are reasons to be skeptical of the clinical evidence for curcumin supplementation, but "the heterogenous population of India isn't experiencing widespread miracle cures from culinary turmeric" is not one of them.

(And yes, garlic extract is also a thing, also extremely concentrated compared to eating whole garlics or seasoning with garlic powder, and has antiplatelet/anticoagulant activity that one should be aware of before taking such supplements)

You are not supposed to be in jail

Especially If you’re wrongfully arrested. “Optimizing society for law abiding people” means the opposite of what you think it means.

"EPA may impede recovery from repeated concussions"

The more pertinent advice would be to avoid getting concussed all the time, but if you're a NFL player, reconsider EPA-heavy supplements (DHA is not implicated).

The framing leads many people to pick blue for its altruistic framing. Enough, in fact, that 50% quorum is honestly not difficult. A lot of red-advocates seem to have a False Consensus Effect going where they're convinced way more people than in reality will interpret this "dilemma" as "do you step in the human grinder in hopes of jamming it", and act accordingly.

A 70% or 90% requirement, or just explicitly framing it as "do you step into the human grinder" would make it vastly easier to aim for 100% red, but we're dealing with the literal words of the "everyone lives button" here.

"fully ethical" meat

Clams. Clams and oysters and such. Sessile bivalves are the plants of the animal kingdom, the "genetically engineered brainless cow" of nature. They're also environmentally friendly even when farmed, and more healthy than any animal meat while addressing the same nutritional needs and more. They're almost comically ethical and healthy (and seafood dishes are great imo), they just don't produce bacon and burgers specifically.

When the algorithm is for estimating consumer surplus, the line between coordination and independent cost-optimization disappears.

Why would you try to one-down on price if an “objective statistical AI algorithm” tells you you’d be leaving money on the table without gaining market share to compensate? All it takes is for the market to be sufficiently concentrated at that point.

“Listen to the economists about the economy, not us” sounds reasonable on its own, but the names LeCun lists are all in the lower/modest AI capabilities camp (and there are economists modeling under the assumption of higher capabilities), so it looks like a thinly veiled proxy for more unresolvable bickering over future AI capabilities predictions.

Mildly amusing that "◶NASAFORCE technologists" sounds like a natural enough string in context that it becomes a garden path sentence leading away from that interpretation.

Having looked at https://doublespeed.ai/ out of morbid curiosity, I have to say a simple screenshot would have sent the message more effectively. Well, that and the tagline "a16z funded this".

The fact you need to work for wealth is a convention of our constraints

The current constraint is "you need to produce to have things".

If one company's AI takes all the jobs, and thus does all the producing-to-have-things, the constraint transforms into "you need that company's permission to have things".

Hence the top-level question.

All fiber-consuming gut bacteria, yes - but that's basically synonymous with "good"/beneficial gut bacteria, so it's good advice even if it doesn't give people the massive gainz they might have been hoping for.

I remember when people were discussing the “performance-improving” hack of formulating their prompts as panicked pleas to save their job and household and puppy from imminent doom…by coding X. I wonder if the backfiring is a more recent phenomenon in models that are better at “following the prompt” (including the logical conclusion of its emotional charge), or it was just bad quantification of “performance” all along.

I strongly suspect that vast majority of the "innovation" in recent years has gone straight to supporting the funding model and institution of the software profession, rather than actual software engineering.

Feels like there’s a counter to the frequent citation of Jevon’s Paradox in there somewhere, in the context of LLM impact on the software dev market. Overestimation of external demand for software, or at least any that can be fulfilled by a human-in-the-loop / one-dev-to-many-users model? The end goal of LLMs feels like, in effect, the Last Framework, and the end of (money in) meta-engineering by devs for devs.

Norway switching from ICEs to EVs objectively reduces global oil consumption+burning by exactly that much.

Norway exporting oil increases oil supply, but doesn't increase consumption. The world's oil consumers are not supply-constrained; the producers are not running at 100% capacity, and they'll happily pick up the slack if Norway just stopped exporting oil for no reason. And there's a large amount of consumption that can't be offset by electrification in the first place (petrochemicals, long distance flight, etc) so there's not even a theoretical future end-state where they require a non-EV-using counterparty to buy their oil to fund their EV usage.

Calling it a "bookkeeping trick" is just verbal sleigh-of-hand.

Because long-term calorie restriction is 100x harder than popping a pill and downing a protein-and-fiber shake, and you can't outrun a burger but you can outlift a calorie deficit, so lumping them all together under "improve diet and exercise somehow" is a nonsensical rhetorical flourish / troll move?

“i can ask it to give a text description of a linear logical math process that has been described in text countless times”

If you think “the tacit knowledge and conscious/subconscious reasoning mix that caused X to write like X” can be meaningfully captured by some 1-page “style guide” like llmtropes, I’m not sure what to tell you. Such a style description would be informed by a soup of reviewers that most certainly cannot write like X even with their stronger and more nuanced observations than what the LLM picked up.

The poll linked in the article shows even trump voters have <30% approval for the pentagon’s actions here, so if the citizenship tells the military how to do things…

Anti-crawler tarpits and related concepts have existed for decades already; LLM training data is only the latest and most popular of web-scraping goals.

Claude is happy and able to provide a laundry list of ways to mitigate the impact of tarpits on your crawler, and politeness / respecting robots.txt is only one of them.

I'm not sure how you could spend 10k/head when ex/ a Claude Team premium plan is $150/mo/head.

The thing is, all these “better than a medieval king” tech niceties still don’t cover the bottom of Maslow’s hierarchy for all, and “poverty” is the state of suffering those gaps for lack of money.

"More reach" seems a valid enough goal/desire in and of itself (even if you deride it as a shallow form of communication, shallow attention is what provides the opportunity for deeper connections); this sets the goal-activity of creative pursuits apart from "lounging alone at the beach" (which is itself a flawed representation of retirement, but that's another story).