grayhatter

In both cases risks were obvious beforehand.

Not everyone is able to accurately predict the future from past patterns. They still deserve dignity and respect. Just because you were able to predict it easily doesn't make it possible for everyone.

The solution I'd like is instead of you making excuses for shitty behavior, instead maybe condemn the shitty behavior? You're allowed to say both, you can said I told you so, (to switching to not windows) while also being bothered when you see SWE at some company mistreat other people. You can complain about LG being abusive with the power they were given, while also offering alternative OS install instructions to that grandma who only wants to VC with her grandkids without being tricked into paying for trash-tier antivirus she doesn't need.

Yep. Not free-for-all, but silently installed crap collecting metrics is well within their expectations.

I don't expect software engineers to build stuff like this. I expect humans to treat other humans with dignity and respect. In fact, it makes me extremely angry when I see people do it, or advocate that others should tolerate it.

I think Eizo is what I'm looking for, I've never heard of the brand before, so I appreciate the recommendation! Hopefully I can convince myself to buy something slower than 120...

I don't mind paying for a bit more for professional gear. In part, because quality is important, but much more important to me is respect.

Why can’t they just see what you can?

Most humans use a default trust model for life; they've been lied to. That's part of why I'm angry, if you trust other people; why would you look for it? This entire article is about the fallout from not looking for it, and the resulting harms to pt care. So, it turns out, it was a mistake to adopt the new tech quickly; you know, as evidenced by the harms to patients?

So I don't know, why do you think they couldn't they predict the harms that I thought were obviously predictable, and then happened?

that's funny; because my root cause analysis didn't show the user as the person making the decision to show themselves ads? did yours, or was the victim blaming intentional?

So I own 5 LG monitors. But now I can't buy LG. I also refuse to support Samsung.

Are there any high quality panel manufacturers left that aren't run huge pieces of shit? Or at least try to respect the people buying their hardware?

It doesn't matter whether you misunderstand LLM summary or LLM "misunderstands" you – there are real risks involved, and you wouldn't want them to weigh on your conscience if they were to materialize.

"fun" fact, a number (some? many? all?) of the LLM speech to text models will editorialize or hallucinate words for you, to make your speech fit the pattern it expects.

I don't think it's appropriate to use a model that can editorialize in a medical transcription setting. I feel that crosses a huge number of ethical lines.

At the moment consensus is that it must not be banned, but also not mandated in any way - people must take responsibility, and they must be able to decide for themselves where and when the LLM use is justified and where it is not.

I have a really hard time understanding how supposed experts in their field, have been taken in so perfectly and so completely. You're a trained and certified medical/healthcare worker, responsible for the health, safety and well being of other humans, and yet willingly turn over parts of the process that exists to protect the safety and health of others, to a machine that you know can and will make mistakes you wouldn't or even couldn't ever reasonably make. You're supposed to make sure it works and is safe for everyone you're responsible for before you start using it... but then, I prefer healthcare that doesn't move fast, and break humans.

I'm sure someone will try to play devil's advocate and suggest it's a good thing to ration care, and that you have to acknowledge that you can't save everybody, faster is better after all But no, I'm angry enough about it that if a licensed person suggests that, I'll gladly complain to your licensing board (rhetorically speaking, I'm not gonna try to doxx anyone). You can't ethically argue for rationing care, and letting a machine known to make errors in ethics or care decisions, that you have been trained not to make. (Advocating for a reduction in the standard of care in order to increase profits.) (Yes, you're correct, if you're in a state of triage, you're required to, and in those cases, using an imperfect machine is possibly preferable, and probably ethical, but still objectionable. I currently refuse to believe that the US is in a state of emergency, but perhaps that's where I'm wrong) Part of your licensure you promised to prioritize patient care above personal gain. You can't then make decisions to experiment with systems you cant prove are safe.

I can understand in when SWEs ignore the best interests of the humans they're working for. But Doctors and Nurses? I guess I expected better from my former colleagues?

Whether a text was written by a human or not is just a single bit of information

I doubt this models reality well at all. If I write the first paragraph, and AI writes the second; a float seems to model that better. If you choose to collapse a float into a bool, I don't think you can make useful conclusions based on that bit?

since even the shortest text contains more information than that.

I also don't think that's how information theory and bits of information works...

I appreciate the candor :) But if I'm honest about the size of my ego; the people who write code I admire, the ones who feel remorse when something they built breaks. The people who care about others, and about quality, and don't list TC as something of value. Those are the people who I consider peers. None of them enjoy LLM codegen. They all tell me, that it's annoying because it takes more effort to fix it's output than to just write it by hand. So, no, none of my peers are saying they're moving ahead leaps and bounds. They equally don't understand why everyone thinks it's better. Excluding those people though; I'm more used to everyone around me being wrong. It'll be interesting to see if I, or we, get left behind.

I really appreciate your comment, I think I've discovered part of why I've never felt any anxiety over being replaced by an LLM. I've never tried or wanted to emit low quality code at high velocity, my standards and goals have always listed quality first. Feels more like asking a chef if they're afraid of llms. Why would they be, they're not doing the same thing.

Conversely, I also am a user of LLMs (true shocker these days, I know), and am noticing a speedup in areas I was already familiar with, and a quicker introduction to new ones. The obvious benefit cannot be denied, and doing so regardless makes you look uninformed. [Excluding people who don’t want anything to do with LLMs out of moral principle, which curiously just like the overarching topic I also both respect and understand, but on the other hand don’t do myself.]

Setting aside my moral outrage over the magic token machines. What about me, who gets so tripped up over minor factual errors, that I'm unable to let them go, and it taints the whole conversation such that I'm too wrapped up in my frustration that I can't think about it clearly? Or my innate drive for correctness that's so strong that I eval the minor errors in output, as catastrophically incompatible with my goals?

Stoically continuing to sharpen your skills on your own, but risking being left in the dust productivity-wise?

I don't believe there's a meaningful productivity increase. Please cite your published (not preprint) peer-reviewed research that proves the productivity improvement. Until then, I'm unconvinced. (Believe me I'd like to be convinced of reality, the answer is still unresolved, and I have my opinions, but I'd rather something conclusive that I can have confidence in)

Then, even if you did show a significant productivity improvement, it wouldn't help me. I have too many qualms over the output quality that I simple can not let go, (I don't think I should, but everyone keeps trying to convince me to lower my quality standards). I don't want something fast, I have plenty of really "fast" things in my life. I exclusively want to add things that are high quality to my life. Things that don't endlessly frustrate me.

The question about where the middle ground is a rhetorically dishonest question. You'd first have to prove/convince me, that there IS a middle ground. Instead of what I believe where that middle ground belongs is quality, and everything emitted by an LLM moves reality in the wrong direction.

Are any of these absolutes? nah, hence my request/demand for peer-review research. All the productivity claims and quality assertions (mine included) are still *exclusively* vibes. But exactly none of them are pristine, (especially not any of the LLM output.)

Now ask if this battle is worth fighting with someone that is actually "just trying to do the right thing," on the front lines of gritty social work, and who may not care as deeply about the philosophical implications of linguistic prescriptivism at hand.

Already asked and answered, rhetorically speaking. Because I don't care what their value system is, so much as feel it's important to stand within mine. I've done social work before; for about 4mo. Couldn't stand it, will never do it again. Am I greatful for OP for doing something I was unable to do? I was before they decided that I was asking in bad faith. Now I don't respect their opinion at all; (another critical internal value of mine, that I'm sure many people expect me to abandon for their benefit, but I've decided I'd rather ~~politely~~ rudely decline).

Which one of us is right? Or actually , I'd like to assert that what the other person cares about isn't a meaningful question in this specific context. Ideally, we'd each be allowed to spend our time on the hills we wish to die on, even if the other cares about a different hill.

If you don't care, let some who does care reply, for an open, public conversation, it's more respectful to ignore topics you don't care about enough to engage in. If some social worker doesn't care about my linguistic prescriptivision, it becomes better for someone that does to respond.

I cat't really imagine what nefarious purposes someone might have in trying to control you into using the word unhoused vs. homeless, it doesn't seem to me an important hill to die on in this context.

I like my word better. I don't think it's nefarious. But it doesn't have to be. I like my word better. People are allowed to be wrong on the internet, and people are allowed to like things you don't.

Despite what OP may or may not want to believe, I actually care very deeply about avoiding needlessly offending people. But unfortunately for this example conversation, I've also been exposed to far too many people who get off on control for the sake of control. And have developed an unnatural aversion to it. Unlike most people, who I believe aren't willing to die on any hill, I'm actually willing to a hill. You might find my hills arbitrary and capricious, but I feel the same way about the hills you want to die on. And critically, no respect for people not willing to die on any hill.

I prefixed my original question with "that asshole" because I actually wanted half the reply I got, if op didn't give a shit, I was hoping/expecting him to ignore me, and for someone else (e.g. you) who's the willing to explain something seemingly obvious to me. "Oh, he's one of those assholes, I have more important things than to waste my time on him", contrasted with your response, which risked wasting time on a possible asshole, because maybe they are actually trying, and deserve some kind of helpful reply.

I'm weird, I can be insulted by specific people who I respect, but rarely offended. I'm blind to whatever nuance that causes normal people to be mad over words. I'm more likely to get mad if someone uses a misleading word but never a rude or insulting one. Rude doesn't register, I'm mentally incapable, I have to go out of my way, to figure it out. I find, for whatever reason, I can *only* use the most correct word, if you want my most correct to be non-offensive, I need to be able to understand exactly why. "It's the new political correct word? Oh is it? Holy shit, I'd better use the new word!" Is how I assume, (for comedic effect), everyone else is able to adopt a new word. My brain refuses to comply with that. I need something concrete to change my behavior. It's a defect I'm aware of, so it's just easier to describe myself as an asshole. Because it's obvious to the people who can see though it, and saves time with the people who can't and would just get mad at me at the end. Saves us both time if it's the prefix. I'm also used to people assuming bad faith, but still I'm never able to figure out why.

Pushing back on it is seen as pointless and unhelpful at best, and "anti-woke" aggression at worst. Ask yourself what you are fighting for there.

Personally, I'm fighting for the idea that words mean things, and the 2nd best word wont do. I have multiple people tell me I'm doing it wrong, no matter which it is. If I'm going to change what I'm doing, I don't want to pick the worst option. More often than not, when someone tells you to use a different word (behave differently), but can't articulate why; it's about control.

I've never had someone tell me it's offensive to call them homeless, I have had people tell me I should feel bad for [trying to help] (rhetorically speaking, different example from this one). I merely want to do what's right, and make it as easy as possible, but I'm personally unable to when I don't understand why...

shrug

I mean, "unhoused" is considered a more polite term among the people I work with, it just basic politeness, there is no other distinction I know about.

I was under the [mistaken?] impression the inverse was true. Or that neither had a significant preference, do you have any cite, or is this experience? Because I've heard from 2 different people no one they talked to cares, I've never bothered to try to verify and was happy to default to the single point I had (paramedic in SF), where I was explicitly told, the differentiator between the two wasn't based in reality. I assume you can understand how what I was told conflicts with your reality, and why I might also be confused?

HN standards are basic civility, starting a comment with "I'll be an asshole" is clearly creating a pretext for violating HN standards.

Do you feel that my comment was actually in bad faith? Or are you just unhappy with the words I picked to express my question and confusion? I prefixed it with what I thought would be the context for, "I understand this question makes people angry, and I don't understand why", but that's a lot less interesting way to ask that question, and uninteresting questions get ignored. Any thoughts or suggestions for what I should have done different, other than pick different words I mean? (Ideally a suggestion that doesn't get ignored?)

though I'll say they put a lie to your initial congratulations and are only tangentially related to the topic at hand

I was completely unable to parse this, thought I might just be too stupid, any help?

I can't have E2EE and also have cross device data sync?

counter point https://github.com/GrayHatter/toxcore/tree/multi-device (I guess technically you'd need https://github.com/uTox/uTox/tree/mdev too)

a warning doesn't count as a paradox. Also, a HN comment warning about HN's inability to help with complex issues, when the community can't even agree on domain specific issues (the cited example), is equally not a paradox.

But thankfully this comment goes to prove OP's exact point, HN comments will make wild claims as if they're true, but will be completely devoid of functional logic.

HN is for entertainment purposes only.

I must have completely read your comment backwards. I thought you were suggesting they didn't have any fault. But you're saying it'd be better if managed their domain themselves, that I completely agree with.

yeah, it is good! I hate usability features too!

llm output?

I think you're being sarcastic? Because you don't believe they are responsible for the actions of their agents?

If I hire someone to file my taxes, and they lie/cheat/steal. I'm still going to jail.

I don't think they should be required to answer for this fuck up, but if they not angry at their chosen agents, it's because they're on the wrong side, and deserve some blame too.

I'd love to see a screencast of this working if you're so inclined one day to make a walkthrough. If it's mostly walking away, that's even better because you could show the prompt and a before/after of it working. (Just a casual observation, and less of a request, not trying to assign work :)

I've seen so many people claim this is the future we're living in, but I've never seen it actually work as described. It's always more hand holding than I'm willing to put into an llm

I don't think rapid iteration causes legal terrorism. Do you have an example, or just vibes?

I meant rapid as in rapid for the legislative context too. I don't mind slow (expected) speed, or laws that have a delay before they take effect. I do have a problem with how political points can and are won not by finding solutions, but exclusively by obstructing the process. I don't mind an imperfect solution that moves the needle into a new better local maximum.

coke cola used to have cocaine in it, it doesn't anymore, people in taste tests prefer the taste of Pepsi... Coke is still the leader in sales.

Infinite scroll doesn't have a positive UX. If it takes an infinite amount of time to use your product, your product is shit.

Unless your product is content, in which case endless scroll encourages thoughtless consumption behavior. That's not a good thing.

We as engineers shouldn't be building stuff that degrades the experience of existence (which is already shit enough), just because you can make money doing so doesn't mean it's not antisocial behavior, and because you can make money by being a really shitty human, it does require some external force to curtail that negative sum behavior.

I agree it's difficult to categorize, the solution is rapid iteration, not allowing the asshattery until the entirety of society figures out it's bad for your brain. Someone should probably fix the political system in the US so we can have rapid iteration on problems again.

If only there was a way to edit the source code, and recompile it yourself.

Oh well, no software is perfect.

I appreciate the idea, I'll happily adopt your SOP, seems pretty useful

thanks

The point is to know better than to let the intern hurt themselves.

I once saw an engineer try to place the blame on his intern for taking down prod. I was sitting in a meeting with the VP of engineering and someone asked if it was ok for some to blame their intern for the SEV, and I remember the VP saying "I'll talk to $director_for_the_interns_mentor". Interns can't take down prod. An intern's mentor willingly watching an intern take down prod is the closest you can get.

I'm a security eng and I've worked for both a FAANG and TS government contractor. Neither of them bothered with either of the of the stupid suggestions. IP restrictions prevent roaming, the point of working remotely via SSH. passwords are equally defeated by using an ssh agent, something I'd suggest everyone use. Then on top of that there's no reasonable threat model where something would be given unrestricted access to user env, but also be untrusted. If it can read from ~/.ssh neither IP protection nor keyfile password protection will protect you from maleficence.

The only reasonable response from a security perspective is don't use grok, then use it sandboxed. Trying to claim it's the users fault for not using password protection and IP restrictions is completely nonsensical. Same energy as telling someone their computer is more secure when it's off.

It doesn’t have to be nefarious.

The nefarious part is because it's non optional. They could give you an option and compete by being better, instead you're given the finger as the option is taken from you. Competition is hard and banning people to create more FUD serves business need better.

You've obviously been gaslit so badly you're desperate to find a way to defend a shitty move and pretend it's the only way to increase usability. But you don't have to deny really! You're allowed to admit control is easier for a company than competition, and that they didn't have to, but did because it increases their control of the ecosystem.

If you want to defend someone, good? But at least save it for someone who actually deserves it. They don't; and you insult you and your readers intelligence by trying.

If knowledge and prestige is all that matters, then don't take the loan, take the scenic route, get your degree slowly as and when you have the time and money, and one day you will have something to look back at.

This is a nice idea, are you younger, or older? I find younger people say you have all the time in the world, where older people more often advocate for not wasting time, and to do it now. I know neither are arguments from your comment, but the context around the difference you see is interesting.

Other than compounding interest, why? Shouldn't everyone do what they find fulfilling as early as possible? Wouldn't acquiring knowledge earlier be as good as acquiring money earlier?

You have the right to a degree in XYZ... you should NOT have the right to a taxpayer backed grant/aid/loan/whatever to gain said degree unless you're on a reasonable path to become a tax payer yourself as soon as you are done with the degree.

I find arguments like this incredibly stupid and shallow. The whole point of a society is to improve reality. The ability to do things together that you can't do alone. No one is owed a society, but we're all forced to live within one with dubious consent, (excluding people who've opted out completely from society). Just by the expectation that you'll obey the social contract, you're are owed the benefits of said society.

I *HATE* dealing with stupid people. I'm fine with my tax dollars being used to provide free education, at every level. To quote Stewart:

How about this, you reimburse me for the [pointless war for oil] and [college education] is on me!

I've gladly payed taxes; and I'll eagerly assert that everyone does have the right to taxpayer funded education. It's what I want my money to go towards.

I think he would have. And might have died of COVID on top of it.

That's my assumption as well, and exactly why I'm curious. That is something I'd assume is a lot easier to believe when it's just the theory. But if I developed a heartblock, I might not be able to rest on that reality. I'm kinda wondering how much confidence they place in that as the inevitability.

I asked because I was thinking about that Jimmy Carr joke, "Do you think we overreacted to covid?" the crowd cheers. "Yeah all the survivors usually think so!". And wondering how true it is, whit some perspective I don't have :)

I'm not asking for evidence, just vibes. I like to think I'd have the perspective to be grateful, but I also know it's just as likely I'd be searching for something to blame other than just the statistics.