HN user
It would be better to just give the students the money and let them spend it as they need.
If I were a student living on a measly $1600/month I would be livid if the school gave me a $200 raise in AI credits, instead of money to buy groceries or pay rent.
The search space for a naive brute force of three polynomials of degree <= 7 with integer coefficients <= 12 is roughly 10^500. I think it would take a little longer than that.
They do, unquestionably.
https://www.thetimes.com/world/article/google-bans-father-ov...
Mark, from San Francisco, had noticed swelling in his son’s groin and used his phone to photograph the problem to get an emergency appointment in February last year. He shared the pictures with a nurse so that a doctor could review them.
However, Google’s artificial intelligence system used to detect child abuse flagged the image to the police and Mark, a software engineer who asked to be identified by only his first name, was investigated and lost access to his Google accounts. He was exonerated by the police in San Francisco but his Google account has not been reinstated.
First party makes no difference, an API can be created for any website or desktop application and served over a network to anyone. It just takes more effort.
Right. Somewhere there’s a dashboard which lists those 6 hours as time saved.
In America?
Probably a better chance the firm privatizes the government.
In fact we seem to be firing government employees and dismantling government institutions as much as possible.
Sure, but wouldn't the leverage of labor go to zero regardless, in this full-automation scenario?
I don’t think people are “underplaying” it, it just doesn’t matter. Engineers aren’t hired for their locomotive skills.
The issue is that, if we don't do it, China will.
These AI companies aren’t state enterprises. How is geopolitics a justification?
If it were just the military training them, probably no one would care about the copyright infringement angle, it makes sense that the government could ignore those rules for national security.
But Mark Zuckerberg isn’t training his models to protect us from China. He’s doing it to make himself even more ridiculously wealthy.
That ”but what if I win” is realistically what you’re paying for if you buy a ticket.
Maybe the sum of enjoyment lottery participants get from daydreaming about winning is >= the cost of running the lottery?
You have to quote this part to really appreciate how self-contradictory this article is.
We received almost a million applicants for 1,111 paid internships this summer.
~1000 applicants per internship! Not a job, an internship. How could that be interpreted as anything other than bleak?
The proof is not written in Lean, though. It’s written in English and requires validation by human experts to confirm that it’s not gibberish.
I work at a university and we still have some workstations that need IE as well, for a healthcare vendor app that needs ActiveX. Up until recently we even had some machines running Windows 7.
There will always be more work that could be done, certainly.
What’s uncertain, however, is whether the work that remains to be done is valuable enough that it makes sense to pay someone an engineer’s salary to do it.
In your analogy, your competitors who keep their people could just as easily end up bankrupt.
That seems backwards to me. In your country, if you were to record someone committing a crime against you in public, you’re the one who will go to jail?
Is the law applied equally, so that businesses, police officers, and government agencies are also not allowed to record in public?
There is nothing wrong with the HTTP layer, it's just a way to get a string into the model.
I know you don’t mean it in a reductive sense, but it’s funny /sad that I can imagine
“HTTP is just a way to get a string into a model”
becoming a real piece of wisdom unironically dispensed on this site in the future. Maybe it already is.
It is not “reasonably safe”. No reasonable person would inject themselves with drugs they bought from an unregulated pharmacy.
Generally when people talk about using LLMs to do mathematics research they’re not talking about the LLM alone, but the LLM + a harness for it to write and execute theorem provers such as Lean or Coq to validate their results.
Unfortunately GitHub Copilot’s commit message generation feature is very human. It’s picked up some awful habits from lazy human devs. I almost always get some pointless “… to improve clarity” or “… for enhanced usability” at the end of the message.
VS Code has a setting that promises to change the prompt it uses to generate commit messages, but it mostly ignores my instructions, even very literal ones like “don’t use the words ‘enhance’ or ‘improve’”. And oddly having it set can sometimes result in Cyrillic characters showing up at the end of the message.
Ultimately I stopped using it, because editing the messages cost me more time than it saved.
/rant