HN user
and yet it's also incredibly effective to be able to recognize "oh this plot is incredibly similar to these 100 other plots and there appears to be a pretty consistent pattern to what is driving where the well is built, and they are all constructed in a very similar fashion, i am just going to copy what they did"
AI is very useful when you dont need to invent anything new
i believe committing the prompt comes about from people who have near unlimited access to the models coupled with the models routinely getting better and an assumption that tasks using AI could always be done better
i dont think that really holds for a large amount, if not nearly all, of the use-cases for AI where it is either failing and shouldnt be in the loop at all or it is capable of developing some code to fix the problem permanently and its okay if that code is not perfect as long as it works.
refactoring with AI can always be a future use-case when the AI improves
same here, but only when it feels like good conversation or is a subject we already discuss. Especially if youre in the same room, then it can become a little trivia game and if no one knows then someone can look it up
related note, my girlfriend is bilingual with spanish, and i only have some old high school classes of spanish to go off of, so whenever she texts me a word i dont recognize i ask her what it means. Aside from helping me understand, she gets a peek into my literacy level (which is admittedly pretty low), i can call out the word when its used again, and i get the impression she likes teaching me these little things.
extending the lesson beyond our little ritual, when you ask another person for the information it goes beyond being useful to each other. it is a bid for connection, and a display that you trust them and their opinion/knowledge on the subject.
good luck editing a photo with CLI tools ( though im sure someone has developed something for this lol)
to your point i think there is a lot of merit to having CLI-first development, where if it can be done in a CLI then do it in a CLI. if a GUI is to be built as an assistance tool, great, but let the actions map to commands that could be saved and re-run
hepped could also just be "hopped" as in "hopped up on X" which is a relatively common phrase for being on some drugs or medication, but using kawaii speak which often softens vowel sounds, turning the open "ah" sound of the 'o' in hopped into a pronunciation of 'eh'. They couldve taken it further and said "hipped up" for no change in meaning. this may not have all been consciously decided, as many chronically online social circles use forms of this speech routinely and linguistics is a funny thing like that where the brain can adopt and make up things to fit it. May also be more of a 'fedora' speech pattern that younger online generation uses ironically in a nerdy voice (general ex. "m'lady"), hence the addition of trivial details like the version number and having early access to a new build of the game
always hard to tell exactly whats influencing the speech of the chronically online folk, but the mention of discord and well everything else about the post seem to strongly indicate it. all this to say, i doubt they were looking to be understood as much as they were just talking to talk and sending some in-group signaling
who is to recognize the tradeoff? communicate it to who? A giant business is built on stability. i dont think its a bad thing that they do not pivot except in circumstances where they have no other choice. The business is a brand and that brand is a certain way of doing things and if/when that way of doing things falls out of favor then the business should fail. the owners made enough to retire by then, as well as many additional people, and its a reasonable way for people to become unemployed which doesnt hurt their chances at new jobs. A new company sprouts up, or 5 new ones, and they can all be lean and quick to pivot and try to figure out the whole new way to do the same kind of business. All the experts can be hired and the supply chain keeps chugging along
this is also a wanring to young people joinging old companies in weak job positions over taking a chance on a new company trying to be better. dont just assume the old company is going to be there forever.
especially now in defense. war has changed. companies like Anduril are on the rise while classics like Boeing, Lockheed, Raytheon, etc are assessing how much they can adapt. its not extreme like theyll go out of business but the gov may order way less jets and such than in the past, and put a lot more money into drones. they will still buy jets though, and the classics may need to adapt to a lower funding pool, lower orders, and becoming a low volume legacy product hovering around certain use-cases, while new companies get all the runway to takeoff on the big investments.
this kind of thing plays out at all different scales and to different degrees everywhere in the market.
i specialize in invoice related analytics and business processes. AI can be useful for data extraction and saves me some typing time. even so, i dont blindl trust it because it sometimes makes very reasonable mistakes because invoices, quotes, and POs are sometimes structured in very informal ways. people misuse the lines, sublines, totals, and other data fields. they are often technically incorrect but when you look at them you know what they mean. i am not sure how to hand that off to something that has plausible deniability to guess even if it doesnt know
sometimes details are just in notes at the bottom and are applied to selectively applied to line items. sometimes the charge doesnt exist anywhere on the bill but there is an understanding (due to a separate agreement) of additional charges to be paid as a result of the invoice.
taxes sometimes are or are not explicitly stated
tariffs sometimes are or are not explicitly stated
when things are not explicitly stated or line item'd, they will usually still appear in the invoice total. so you have item 1 - $500, item 2 $500. total: $1300
At the end of the day invoices are often part of an ongoing communication / conversation between two organizations and they are created with an assumption that a rational and reasonable human who is in the loop with that conversation is going to read it.
there's no need to make it illegal, as it's not even remotely achievable
Tor is full of honeypots, its good for getting around 3rd party snooping but useless for government level privacy
its also just disastrous for signal to noise ratios. scanning everything means any sort of error rate is going to cause massive amounts of incorrect labelling. this means innocent things getting flagged and put into a system where people are treated like offenders when they arent until they can get an actual human with authority to review their circumstances (not guaranteed to happen at all btw), or some actual offenders get away with more bc they passed a scan
outlier cases aside, there is also just a large amount of processing power that will go into this, the service can only be worse off for it. Privacy is not just about being able to hide things, it is also about being in control of how you present to the world. not because that control is maniupulative but because we all exist within our own microcosms of uniqueness, using words slightly differently than each other, and having certain balances of intention and meaning with those we send messages to that cannot be fully presumed from a 3rd party. even in images.
Are they really saying "if you want to send private messages then go make your own network" ?
That’s not true,
my bad then, i misunderstood the context
I think their point is that you lose some battles in a war, chat Control 1.0 is a battle that was already lost. While it is still worthwhile to make an effort to retake lost ground there, that can be done strategically and through habitual effort and does not demand immediate attention the same way an imminent threat of losing new ground would be
most people simply dont care to control for higher order effects. they enjoy doing things on principle and then dealing with the effects seperately.
the principle of protecting children is strong. the solution of verification, no matter how poorly implemented, cannot be struck down while people are interested in persuing the principle it claims to represent.
the only other way around it is to come up with another solution that supports the principle and hope it gains more traction. but when the powers at be putting forth the verification may have ulterior motives to begin with, alternative solutions have a way of losing traction
the more I think about what intelligence really is and what it is about humans that AIs seem unable to replicate, the closer I come to the conclusion that personality is a huge component of intelligence. Certain problem spaces have a structure such that personality differences are stripped away, like in math problems for example, but more and more I am genuinely starting to believe that personality drives intelligence.
There is an undeniable mechanical / logical / objective component to intelligence that acts as the machine to get answers, but I am becoming ever increasingly convinced that you cannot actually separate this machine from personality and still perform at the highest level it is capable of. Communication has its own intelligence limits, and I do not think the marketing angle of "putting intelligence on a meter for you to buy" is going to be an actual real application of intelligence. Not without also outsourcing your personality or being satisfied with a flanderized impersonator of yourself as part of the intelligence
it may seem like this sort of thing should be ignorable for analyzing an MRI, that it's an objective conclusion. But medicine is not really as black and white as it seems. Doctors often have different opinions and they are credible. scans are not oracles, interpretation is involved, as well as a measurement of faith in what the patients body is able to do on its own and what it cant. hard to describe in a simple comment, but the point is that medical diagnosis are not exaclty something that can be packaged into perfect products for consumption to turn into the 1 and only treatment that's best for you
the more advanced models also utilize a lot more tokens, and a lot of these extra tokens may go towards safeguards at a higher rate than prior models as well.
not to say a speed boost isnt there but if they didnt increase tokens / s at all youd likely see things slow down a lot with the new model compared to current
automate transcription
this also means trusting the LLM to decide what things mean. but there is very likely a great middle ground of having LLMs take their best guesses and then verifying the output on significant finds. the risk is in LLM understating something important, false negatives, leading to putting stuff at the bottom of the pile that appears mundane but isnt
I get that its a hobby, but are you able to do anything with it? is it purely a learning sandbox or are there some use-cases that you are able to use your OS for that it is a cleaner or more performant solution than existing OS?
IT doesnt control the funding so at that point its not an issue of awareness but a management decision to live with this problem and focus funding elsewhere
more often than not, many things in the business are on fire and underfunded at the same time. you can get recognition for your work without the problem being permanently solved the right way, and it may not result in more funding but peopel will think of you for new opportunities that pop up later as someone who is reliable.
if you dont think the recognition will happen and youre just burning out solving these problems then stop solving them. new problem pops up thats outside your job description, its not your problem. generally though if youre working for someone like that anything you do is a lose-lose
itemize the problems you are preventing
"Accounted for X situation" "Added gaurdrails to protect against Y"
When working as a business analyst i have to do this sort of thing all hte time or else id get no credit for half my work
in a way, for sure - but the incentive exists outside the system so the system would not know what incentives people have for using it. but it usually has rules, input/outputs, delegated authorities for limited scopes, etc. so the system is just the result of those things which may be a greater or lesser scope than any given incentive. Systems are usually used to manage many different incentives as well, so perfect alignment with all of them is often impossible
For example, we might say the US postal systems intended purpose is to deliver mail legal packages. the unabomber had an incentive to use that system to deliver bombs through the mail and it worked. So it was more true to say the purpose of the us postal system (at that time) was to move any items at all from one location to another, at least with respect to the incentive of wanting stuff moved around.
but having a mailman potentially go to every home every day is also something the system does. exciting dogs is something the system does. Just like how blocking the street is something that the garbage collection system does in its current state, which might have an impact on the hours of the day chosen to send hte trucks to collect. There may not be an incentive for everything the system does, and when framed around purpose you might call them side effects, but it's all the same to the system.
when a person is operating as part of the system and something goes wrong, we try to shift blame to them - and it becomes a grey area. this is often why individuals are not held accountable for their actions on behalf of a system when they hurt someone. if you call the police on your neighbor falsely claiming he is violent, the police show up and are too aggressive, and your neighbor get injured - there is mixed responsibility. Using force is within the scope of the police system, you subjected your neighbor to that system knowing that, and the officers have discretion oso depending on the details may or may not have been acting as reasonable representatives of the police system. Taken to an extreme though, SWAT-ing your neighbor is now seen as a serious crime on your part, as we understand teh system that supports a SWAT team showing up to a location to include damages and a low bar for lethal force. we cant say the purpose of the 'SWAT system' is to attend to threats, its not. it is to act on behalf of information claiming a threat exists, because thats what it does.
okay im yapping again, my bad
"the purpose of a system is what it does"
thank you, i believe this is closer to, if not exactly, the original wording.
The purpose of a McDonald's ice cream machine is to create billable service calls and ensure support contracts
this is spin, but does have truth. i think people dramatize the quote too much towards conspiracy or alternative intent.
I think the best way to interpret the quote is to remove intent and purpose from the system entirely and keep it somewhere above the system. i think it is really meant to undermine any purpose you think a system intrinsically has. it is a collection of tools and processes that have inputs and outputs.
Responsibility for how a system is used and what it accomplishes stays with the people using it. When you know what the consequences of using a system are going to be and you use it anyway, then those consequences are what the purpose of your action is, regardless of what it might seem like the system was initially designed to do.
Assigning single purpose to things is not necessary. "Systems are what they do" is a quote for a reason.
I think in addition to rules survival and admin self-concern, people genuinely underestimate how much maintenance and effort go into accomplishing goals in an organized, communicable, trustable way. It is also why AI is not as successful as people thought it was going to be at taking over jobs.
If you think the only value add to a business is the business output, you are taking admin work for granted.
the point is that argument can be made regardless of deed restrictions. the city generally does things it believes to be in the best interest of the city, so making a deed restriction with it is borderline meaningless with respect to authority. it is purely symbolic, but you would hope that people representing the city see the deal for what it is and respect it unless it's absolutely necessary to override it.. rather than treating the original owner like a sucker and putting up a data center
The city usually has the authority to dismiss deed restrictions if it is in the best interest of the city.
my wording was too vague though, youre right in that I took for granted we were talking about the city and this doesnt generally apply to normal ownerships or else HOAs wouldnt be anywhere near as annoying as they are.
presumably because it's not their land and if A wanted to build a data center on it to begin with then B could do nothing about it.
the key issue is C doing things that it's taxpayers dont want done.
in this case though taxpayer money is not being spent, the property is being sold which means money is being generated for the taxpayers, and the new property owner is
ultimately A never had the authority to contract the land as a park indefinitely and relied on C to have respect for the deal and intent. Maybe a timeframe needed to be stipulated, but even then we are talking about land ownership - once C owns it they own it. If you wanted to buy a house and the seller said something about you never being allowed to develop a section of the backyard because they buried their goldfish there or something, and you respect that wish but now need to move as well, are you stuck with passing that obligation forward? someone can just arbitrarily decide that land cannot be used?
No thats why there is no standing, they have every right to use the land to better the taxpayers. the problem is not the method or authority, the problem is that people dont want to give up a park for a data center and dont see the data center as something that benefits the taxpayers. that issue is not one that should be settled by the deed.
the property devaluation is a problem that should be addressed independently on its own merits and not through the means of challenging if they have the authority or not.
think of it like this: the goal of LLMs (im saying LLM as shorthand for all of the AI algs) is to replicate human output / work, not so much to capture the human experience. so in order to do things, like communicate concepts, play a role in a scene, make choices, we project our human experience down into a lower resolution / constrained space to generate an output.
the question then is whether or not LLMs can mimic the projection of human experience as well as the real thing or not. My hypothesis is no for total general replication, but in certain fixed problem spaces I think its yes and the set of these spaces is growing. will it grow enough to encompass all practical work? not sure yet
AI tools are more like an author writing a character than a human revealing truths about their experiences. the difference between the LLM and an actual author is that the LLM kind of starts off with a 'flanderized' version of the character while an author can sort of blend personal experience and character to get at real human relatable decisions for the character. the result can be indistinguishable, because if the LLM is too predictable, too flanderized, we can inject artificial randomness to it to simulate personality.
you end up with unsolvable debates like movie critics have. "This character wouldnt make that decision in that situation if they were a real person, it doesnt make sense" vs real humans making irrational decisions.
ultimately i think the human experience is something we learn about with each other as we live it, and to think were any good at identifying it from sufficiently good imposters is putting the cart before the horse. once i know something is done by an actual human, my understanding of the world can shift. we dont decide what it means to be human, we accept what humanity is and try to work with it. So the philosophical debate on AI experience is moot to me, its not human therefor it teaches me nothing about humans and can replace exactly 0 human activity for me. Still can be a useful tool though
Enough of this divided binary world, we are all one
the consequences are that they dont get to be in charge of the time anymore and i stop entertaining the interview game. its not about "showing them" or giving them some sort of punishment, it would be about me relaxing into behavior I want do regardless of them. Which for me would likely be a brief statement that they are losing me as a general professional courtesy and then hanging up on them because I almost certainly have better things to be doing with my time
but having already blocked the time off it's also completely reasonable to take 5 or 10 minutes to farm them for some content for my personal life like the other commentator stated, more or less.
it's not a calculated maneuver centered around them. The purpose of stating that consequences exist is because there are people out there who genuinely believe you have to be a monkey and jump through all the hoops of whatever any employer asks and would condemn someone for trolling a blatant tie waster for 10 minutes. My intent with this public discourse is to give the trolling a pass, not uplift it as some sort of standard of justice
translation is an interesting problem in and of itself still. its kind of a miracle we can do it at all, yet in some circumstances it seems obvious for there to be objective answers (cooking ingredients being one of them), but even then you never really know even with human translators if you've got it correct. even within the same language nearly every individual has their own version of it.
for example, how would you translate "chips" to another language without first knowing which version of English you are translating from? could be an american speaker with a british relative and they use the british definition of chips while otherwise mostly speaking american english.
there's a level of pragmatism in translation that needs to be assumed, and ultimately we have to accept that translated knowledge will always have low resolution. There is a layer of work that needs to be done with the source of the materials involvement to get written content to a level of formalism needed to be representative of the language it is written in. Generally, the work of editors. Which means successful translation for wide distribution, while still not guaranteed, is predicated on the editorial skills of the translator which begs for dialogue with the source.
Meanwhile, AI provides this super convenient band aid to get translation results you can't disprove.
I genuinely think people are severely underestimating the power held by these models for being translators and how literal truth is going to be determined by them deep behind the scenes under the disguise of accessibility. Not in a dangerous way necessarily, just in a way where what languages are and what words mean is going to shift towards whatever the models think they are.
In a way, over extended time, the models will not be wrong about the translations because their results will redefine what successful formal editing of language looks like, and disagreeing with them will amount to the same difference as having local slang.
Agreed. Wasting applicants time should have consequences. I can play along for a little bit to appease people who are intentionally testing how I handle a difficult situation but I am not going to allow an extended waste of time to occur and that's something I want to communicate to potential employers as well