hobom

China is 6 months behind because of distillation attacks, otherwise the gap would be larger

They are taking in more than they are spending hosting them. However, the cost for training the next generation of models is not covered.

Meta was strongly against the Australian social media ban.

Sorry, the "they" referred to the hyperscalers

Even more extreme, that might mean they won't be able to offer Claude to non-US companies at all.

The article didn't suggest that the video mentioned was AI slop, it correctly recognised it as human generated.

So the problem IS that people are putting in too much (even if accidentally) ?

There are several concrete proposals to regulate AI either proposed or passed. The most recent prominent example of a passed law is California SB53, whose summary you can read here: https://carnegieendowment.org/emissary/2025/10/california-sb...

Australia's soon-to-take-effect ban affects nine platforms, including Instagram and Facebook, but not HN. These bans often operate on the amount of users a platform has, so HN is unlikely to make the cut. Nobody cares about this site.

Jonathan Haidt, the most prominent psychologist pushing for restrictions on social media use for children, is also the most prominent proponent of letting kids play and roam more freely. So no, those are not the same people.

What a fantastic way to write a post mortem, pedagogically very useful.

At least in part, according to the article, because the not-yet-on-GLP1 folks are NOT customers since they are often denied coverage in the first place.

The West told plenty of its companies, through public pressure or laws, that they have to divest from Russia, and they did. Rationally they recognized that selling their assets is financially more lucrative than just closing their operations and making 0$. Now why would an corporation which alleges to not be controlled by a government refuse to sell and forego billions in income, even though it is against the interest of their shareholders?

As far as I know that was a distinct, previous endeavor. Only afterwards did the Vinklevoi approach him to make the website, an idea which he then allegedly ran with on his own.

Does 4Chan also have bot BEHAVIOR detection (e.g. unnatural mouse movements)that google captcha has?

The article provides almost no hard data to back the headline up. They link a report on buy backs, but at least the abstract/summary does not provide support for the claim either.

Written in a very partisan way, although the description of how stock buy backs create bad incentives for CEOs sounds convincing to me.

FWIW, I thought he did pretty well and came away more convinced of his theses. For most of Tyler's alternative and let's say colorful explanations of the data, Haidt provided different sets of data and explanations that were more convincing. As a libertarian and techno optimist, Tyler seemed pretty biased, for example when he offered as an explanation for the plummeting mental health of teens at the exact time smartphones get introduced a random " maybe everyone's mood just got worse randomly". The only thing Haidt didn't refute that well was Tyler's (imo overconfident) assertion that teens will just use AI to summarize social media to them and spend more time with friends.

Like the OP, I also greatly respect the work Rachel and you did for AI.

Nevertheless, I can't help but think that you are seeing this issue to negatively.

"The point of the article is that AI as a research tool is insufficient to result in improvements to patient outcomes on its own." This seems unlikely if you consider this question as-is. Past technological improvements has made healthcare better overall without requiring societal changes necessarily. Take mRNA vaccines, a technology that has improved Covid-19 outcomes tremendously. Sure, certain groups have less access than other groups, but surely even marginalized groups are better off overall because of the existence of these vaccines. Health is not a zero-sum game.

And I think this negative attitude also misses the potential of AI by default. Yeah it sucks that not everyone gets MRI access, but those that do will benefit, including marginalized groups. I guess it feels wrong to some people to express a positive sentiment at an unjust state of affairs, but improved diagnosis and treatments translate into lives saved.

You also have to compare AI to the status quo. Sure, AI will have biases, but so do humans (as Rachel points out!) and the decisive question is whether AI has less biases (similarly to how safety of self driving cars is judged). With AI you at least have a chance of analyzing the decision making, and making it objective. We should be extremely excited about this possibility!

It's basically all present in the article

While true in general, it is really not that necessary to have a representative sample for checking whether your software works. With large enough sample size a convenience sample will find almost all of the bugs that telemetry would have found.

Comparing against 1990 is wrong though, as we should compare against the start of widespread social media use (2010 at least), and it's also pretty likely that other OECD countries are lagging behind with widespread adoption by a few years. If we don't see an increase from 2015 to 2022 THAT would be counterevidence.

This is not an accurate reading of the Conclusion section. He just sums up what has been observed and does not mention any causal factors. Earlier, he explicitly says that causal factos will be covered by other posts. While he indeed links to another article, he claims at no point in this article that coddling is a factor here.

Donald Trump never attended an MBA program.

That is not true. All food in the supermarket is taxed the same.

The just-world fallacy is strongly in play with many comments here. Because those foundations and charities are massively affected by this scandal, there MUST be something they did wrong, right? Surely they should have vetted their donors better? And when making these arguments, we totally forget that people specialising in vetting people, like investment funds, journalists and so on, completely fell for the guy. If you want charities to implement a standard that would have prevented them from taking money from SBF, congratulations, you now have a process that prevents them from taking money from basically any billionaire.

Calling Israel an appartheid state, and your specific examples betray a state of mind which applies arbitrary standards to Israel that never get applied to literally ANY other country in the world.

Some of your specific examples: "Illegal Settlers living in Palestine can vote in Israel but not Palestinians." Americans living abroad in France can vote in American elections, but note the French people. Therefore the US is an appartheid state.

How is controlling your state border via a wall appartheid?

I have always wondered whether inducing exhaustion through exercise and strainous activities throughout the day could help overcome insomnia.

Unfortunate consequence of a legacy legal system. Uber drivers are clearly neither quite like employees nor are they entrepreneurs, and the law should come up with a fitting category that ensures they are protected from exploitation but continue to enjoy some of the freedoms associated with the gig economy.

His science journalist part is also not convincing. Neil deGrasse Tyson far outstrips the popularity of science journalists, because unlike other scientists he is not boring to everyday people

I think there was some reddit data hoarder initiative that did that a few months ago.