skybrian

Maybe, but it's not like their AI is likely to repeat it back verbatim so it's unlikely to be a copyright violation. It seems like at most, they would be breaking Anthropic's terms of service?

Or maybe they're going through an intermediary "transfer station" that's breaking terms of service:

https://www.chinatalk.media/p/how-to-buy-cheap-claude-tokens...

Some unexpected behavior: I reloaded the page, double-tapped on the first slide to go back to it, then hit slideshow. Instead of starting out on the slide like I chose, it went to a slide further in othe presentation. I think it’s a bit too persistent about resuming where you left off?

Also, swiping left to get back to the first slide puts me back in the editor (I went too far), and then hitting slideshow puts me back where I started so I have to swipe left again.

Also, viewing slides on a tablet, I don’t see a way to open speaker notes since I can’t “press the S key.” These instructions should probably be different if you’re not on desktop.

Maybe display speaker notes by default if the screen is in portrait mode?

This is very neat!

For people clicking on a link to some slides that someone shared, it seems like starting out in viewing mode with a prominent edit button might be better than starting out in edit mode?

Presence powers OpenAI’s English-language phone support channel at 1-888-GPT‑0090

That’s the first I’ve heard of it. Has anyone tried it?

Maybe they don’t have a lot of in-house expertise and they would rather outsource? It will depend on whether they trust OpenAI to do a good job versus some other vendor versus doing it in-house.

Copying / syncing passkeys between password managers is still work in progress, but you can usually work around it by making multiple keys. For important websites, I recommend saving additional passkeys to Keychain, etc, as backup, assuming the website allows that. (It should, but some websites might not have a good implementation.)

Also, nothing says you have to delete passwords (or alternate means of logging in) if you already have them set up. Having multiple ways in will help prevent lockout.

The article is about the best you could theoretically do with a perfect router. The takeaway is that trying to build a good router is worth doing. But it's unlikely to be a perfect router.

The 404s mean that somebody or something checked if the post at the URL existed, and got a clear answer. Seems like it's good that they checked, at least. You won't see any evidence of the ones who don't check.

Also, I imagine keeping their cars out of Chinese New Year celebrations (and other big events) is something Waymo could figure out how to do if they put their minds to it.

Yes, both rich and poor people will use Google's free services. It's sort of like how a can of Coke is the same no matter who you are.

But also, Google sells plenty of "premium" products to people who are willing to pay, starting with YouTube premium. And I'm getting lots of upsells when using Google Meet these days.

Vague asks like this are empty. Do you have anything specific that you want to advocate for? Favorite charities?

I think you’re right about practicality. Seems like nonstandard models of arithmetic suggest that there are things we cannot know about all natural numbers, because some of them (nearly all of them) are “too high to work with.” They are too high when all you can do with them is write proofs about them using induction.

There’s a sense in which the set of natural numbers is too big to be practically useful, but no smaller set makes sense when writing proofs. The set of numbers you can reach without using induction (say, by using a computer to check) isn’t well-defined.

And that has nothing to do with AI’s limitations.

That sounds more monolithic than modular, but I guess some projects don’t decompose easily? Or maybe they do, but getting there is the goal.

It’s too soon to say if it’s good for humanity; that might be overly optimistic. Commodity markets aren’t always good (for example, arms or drug markets). Will LLM’s turn out like one of those? There are people I respect arguing in favor of more regulation.

That seems quite different from my design process. I write a plan.md that goes through multiple revisions. The plan is the memory. Restarting and reading the plan again to do another review is a good way to get a different perspective.

I think this is because they're having trouble with capacity planning. They plan conservatively, and they have extra capacity that's going unused. But they don't want to commit to anything, in case usage spikes.

I'm skeptical that posting on social networks will accomplish what you're hoping for. I've been fairly actively commenting on Hacker News for over 15 years and haven't met anyone this way. This is just recreational typing.

How do you know that's the ulterior motive? Anything more than vibes?

There are a lot of different people in different countries pushing for age verification and I imagine they wouldn't all have the same motives.

I think a reasonable way to divide up responsibilities would be identify child-locked devices, not people. It should be trivial for a website to identify a device with a child lock turned on. Then it's up to parents to make sure their kids get a child-locked device. Manufacturers can make it easy to turn on, and society can help by not selling devices to kids without a child lock turned on.

It won't work against a determined teen (too many unlocked devices out there), but it doesn't have to work perfectly to change the culture that most kids have to deal with.

It sounds like charities will be getting a lot of unsalable clothing to go through. Maybe they could charge businesses for taking it?

It seems rather similar to what Ross Clothing does.

I wouldn’t call it “low hanging fruit” but it’s easy to think of problems that seem harder. Apparently solving notable math conjectures is easier than building a practical robot to deliver a package to someone’s porch?

So, yes, AI is a big deal and we don’t know what it’s going to affect, but the goal of replacing everyone’s job is extremely ambitious and there’s a long way to go.

This has to be assessed separately for each kind of job.

This apparently required a 10-page prompt. It seems like someone needs to know enough to write it?

I imagine they built it mostly for themselves, but open sourcing it is a nice gesture.

An OpenAI subscription seems like a decent alternative for people using open source coding agents. It has usage limits too, but for $20/month it’s not bad.

Modern concrete has steel rebar, which is very useful, but eventually corrodes. Stainless steel rebar could be used if longevity mattered, but usually it doesn’t because the building will likely become functionally obsolete and need replacing before then.

The article is a bit confusing because they also write:

Regardless of which process had the bug—the compiler or compiled program—in both cases the processor only did the bad thing because the compiler told it to. And in both cases the fix is the same: the compiler's code must change, since that code was what caused the memory corruption.

But yeah, I wonder what those 1,200 unsafe uses actually did?

Opportunity cost arguments are more convincing when there’s some specific opportunity that you’re comparing against.

Otherwise, it’s sort of like saying that people will find a job doing something else, without any thought to what that something else would be. The jobs don’t create themselves.

They are saying that running the compiled code is memory-unsafe when there is a compiler bug, and that’s what developers do next. The memory corruption happens in a different process.

In this respect, effectively all the compiler should be treated sort of like an unsafe region because it requires extra care to avoid memory corruption bugs.

“That can do anything” gives me Zombo.com vibes. I would be more interested if it seemed to do particular things well.

This blog is kind of an interesting hybrid:

Every article published on SmarterArticles is authored and editorially controlled by Tim Green. Artificial intelligence tools are used within a structured and supervised workflow as research and drafting instruments. All arguments, framing decisions, source selections, and final publication choices remain human-directed and under my full responsibility.

There are references at the bottom, but I would have preferred direct links or footnotes within the article. Also, direct quotes are nice. I didn’t notice any glaring AI cliches.