not2b

It's been common in electronic design automation tools to have license terms like that (forbidding use to create a competing product). However, competing companies have often found workarounds, either by finding loopholes or just breaking rules and hoping not to get caught.

In many cases, I found that when colleagues said "we didn't change anything" they mean "we didn't change anything relevant" which winds up meaning "we didn't change anything we think could be relevant to this issue" and then "whoops, turns out it was relevant after all".

It was the preferred lab computer in the mid to late 1970s and into the 80s. I got my first job because I knew PDP-11 assembly language, and worked with both DEC's operating systems for them (RT-11 and RSX-11) and later Unix (the lab I worked with had some machines running Version 6, though Version 7 was the first that I used seriously. It had a very clean and symmetric instruction set that used the program counter as if it were another general purpose register. I had an LSI-11 board (the single-board version of the machine) with 4K 16-bit words of core memory and a paper tape punch with a tiny loader in ROM to read in the tape and peek and poke memory, and I'd sometimes initialize the core memory to a known state by running the one-instruction program

mov -(pc), -(pc) or 014747 in octal. It would fill all of memory with 014747.

I had to turn off that gmail feature, because to enable it you also have to enable the horrible AI stuff. So gmail is less useful to me now than it used to be. You can't have the good features (automatic categorization, reminders of plane flights) without the intrusive son-of-Clippy crap I can't stand.

Yes, it looks just barely significant. Results that are on the edge like that often aren't reproducible.

Cool. So we benefit by prediction markets surfacing insider information about Trump's plans in the Iran conflict, and unknown insiders making hundreds of millions on that information with massive trades minutes before each announcement benefited the people watching prices in the oil market? That doesn't seem right.

If the result is statistically significant, it just barely makes it. 84.8% isn't that much higher than 80.8% and they had only 250 prompts, if I'm reading this right.

Rather, several missing, useful APIs that were hard to emulate efficiently have been added. That's not "Windows in the Linux kernel".

They process those error messages in the same way that they process your instructions about what code to generate. It is just more commands.

That would matter if we were asking the AI to generate code open-loop: someone probably already wrote something close to what you asked for in Python. But if the agent generates code, tries to compile it, sees the detailed error messages and acts on those messages to refine the code, it's going to produce a higher quality result. rustc produces really good diagnostics. And there's a lot of Rust code online now, even if there's so much more Python and Javascript/Typescript.

The strongest evidence that something like MOND isn't the answer is that in some galaxy collisions, the visible matter and the dark matter appear to separate: the collision disrupts the visible matter and the dark matter appears to pass right through, uninterrupted, and we see galaxy remnants that look like they don't have dark matter. If MOND or some other modification of gravity were the answer we'd never see this kind of sorting.

See, for example, https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/dark-matter-flies-ahead-o...

If by some miracle someone managed to create this, and a critical mass of people somehow discovered it and used it, at some point they'd burn out, sell it, and it would turn into the same shit that we see everywhere else.

That is why egcs was launched, to get around the inability of the old team to do gcc releases. The issues had little to do with ideology and were about fixing a broken process and replacing it with something that had a hope of working.

I looked at it and it is impressively lightweight. It would help if it could collapse duplicate notifications, right now the notifications page is filled with repeats even though I'm not all that popular on fedi.

If the navigation simulates what would happen if we follow links to SPA#pos1, SPA#pos2, etc so that if I do two clicks within the SPA, and then hit Back three times I'm back to whatever link I followed to get to the SPA, I guess it's OK and follows user expectations. But if it is used as an excuse to trap the user in the SPA unless they kill the tab, not OK.

Clearview again. ICE is using it too, and their people think it is an oracle that is always correct, so that when someone shows a passport card or a RealID showing that they are someone else, a US citizen or permanent resident, they are usually accused of having a fake ID. It's a flawed tool and it misidentifies people sometimes.

I understand why OpenAI is trying to reduce its costs, but it simply isn't true that AI crawlers aren't creating very significant load, especially those crawlers that ignore robots.txt and hide their identities. This is direct financial damage and it's particularly hard on nonprofit sites that have been around a long time.

What does "verified" mean here? You can verify that a real company posted that job, but you can't verify whether it is fake in the sense that they really have an H1B candidate they really want for the position and they are just advertising it to meet legal requirements.

Conservapedia had to have a person create each article and didn't have the labor or interest. Grok can spew out any number of pages on any subject, and those topics that aren't ideologically important to Musk will just be the usual LLM verbiage that might be right or might not.

You dropped my words "into trying something more effective". Steering people into treatments found to be more effective is, precisely, giving people the best available information. Ivermectin is great if you have a parasitic infection. It doesn't help against viral infections.

People were literally buying horse dewormer when their doctors wouldn't prescribe it for them. "Influencers" were selling it. So the media were being accurate. To the extent that this made people look dumb, the intent was mostly to shame them into trying something more effective.

This is going to be a huge problem for conferences. While journals have a longer time to get things right, as a conference reviewer (for IEEE conferences) I was often asked to review 20+ papers in a short time to determine who gets a full paper, who gets to present just a poster, etc. There was normally a second round, but often these would just look at submissions near the cutoff margin in the rankings. Obvious slop can be quickly rejected, but it will be easier to sneak things in.

I think on HN, people waste too much time arguing about the phrasing of the headline, whether it is clickbait, etc. and not enough discussing the actual substance of the article.

No, but they like the sycophancy.

You're right, mostly, but the fact remains that the behavior we see is produced by training, and the training is driven by companies run by execs who like this kind of sycophancy. So it's certainly a factor. Humans are producing them, humans are deciding when the new model is good enough for release.

Agreed. I used to review lots of submissions for IEEE and similar conferences, and didn't consider it my job to verify every reference. No one did, unless the use of the reference triggered an "I can't believe it said that" reaction. Of course, back then, there wasn't a giant plagiarism machine known to fabricate references, so if tools can find fake references easily the tools should be used.

Cute. But please don't use this, because in addition to making your text useless for LLMs it makes it useless for blind and vision impaired people who depend on screen readers.

6,000+, and those machines served many others (back then there were tens of thousands of machines on the Internet, but probably 10x as many that were connected to these by relays that handled email or Usenet traffic).

Well, sort of. RTM underestimated the effect of exponential growth, and thought that he would in effect have an account on all of the connected systems, without permission. He evidently didn't intend to use this power for evil, just to see if it could be done.

He did do us all a service; people back then didn't seem to realize that buffer overflows were a security risk. The model people had then, including my old boss at one of my first jobs in the early 80s, is that if you fed a program invalid input and it crashed, this was your fault because the program had a specification or documentation and you didn't comply with it.

Agreed. Some of the big companies seem to be claiming that by going with ReallyBitCompany's AI you can do this safely, but you can't. Their models are harder to trick, but simply cannot be made safe.