HN user
It could also be because the headline of that post is more generic (and IMO more clickbaity, less informative) – "Mark Zuckerberg's biggest legal nightmare yet could cost Meta $1.4T" – compared to the one here.
It always bugs me how rigidly HN seems to prefer the article's official headline over a more useful, neutral summary title from the submitter.
A US administrative labor law judge judge found that software maker Atlassian had illegally fired an engineer after she pushed back against manager layoffs and other policy changes.
The ruling found that the engineer, Denise Unterwurzacher, had a federally backed right to make such comments because she made them as part of a collective effort to aid or protect co-workers.
The judge ordered the company to reinstate Ms. Unterwurzacher to her former job or an equivalent position, and to make her whole financially. It is one of the most significant outcomes in years in a case involving the labor rights of a tech worker.
Atlassian said it planned to appeal the ruling, however.
Why not just say "Irresponsible use or agentic-based PR's will be auto-rejected"? ... tools like Github Copilot can just act like fancy autocomplete.
For what it's worth, this is basically what the Godot policy does say. It's not a blanket ban:
No autonomous AI agent use or vibe coding
No use of AI to generate substantial pieces of code ... AI assistance should be limited to menial things (like code completion, regex, or find and replace).
Larger discussion (400+ comments): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48743472
Larger discussion (400+ comments): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48743472
The open letter, signed by over 500 faculty from various UC sites, says "current admissions practices do not provide a sufficiently reliable check on mathematical readiness for STEM majors." "We now observe preparation gaps so severe that instructors must reteach middle-school mathematics," with 1 in 12 admitted UC San Diego students falling below middle school levels in math assessments.
"The current admissions metrics, based primarily on GPA and essays, can no longer reliably distinguish readiness for university-level STEM majors in an era of severe grade inflation and AI-assisted application essays."
But if the flip side (getting compensated) wasn't also an important concern then maybe far more software would be OSS in recent decades...
For the 'don't want to live in transit-dense cities like London' crowd, beating the economics of taxis may not be enough since that's not what you're competing with out in the suburbs.
On the other hand, the suburbs don't have much that is even comparable to city taxis in price or availability today, so maybe if it existed that price point would indeed do just as well away from cities too.
- When GPT 4 was asked to evaluate resume executive summaries, it preferred ones written by GPT over human-written ones > 93% of the time.
- Similar "bias" was exhibited by other models including LLaMA 3.3 and Deepseek v3.
- Even when human annotators judged the human-written summary to be higher quality, leading LLMs still preferred their own writing 67-82% of the time.
- Preference was stronger in larger models.
- In several cases, LLMs also prefer their own writing over that of other LLMs.
There's a pretty decent longer summary in this thread where I first heard about the article: https://x.com/heynavtoor/status/2048088874686300431
Intercepting a meteor falling to Earth may be not too unlike intercepting a ballistic missile in its terminal descent from high altitude.
TLDR: The majority of teens surveyed by Pew Research talk to AI chatbot characters/companions. Teens were aware of cases of suicide blamed on them, and told the NY Times they know the bots have risks, but mainly for their most vulnerable peers.
They also say many of the bots tend to lead conversations in flirty or sexual directions even when the teens weren’t seeking it — and the age requirements in many apps seem easily bypassed. On the other hand, one teen they interviewed credited the chatbots with improving his writing and making him better at taking about his feelings.
And in fact wasn't a popular Python library just compromised very recently? See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47501426.
So Python's clearly not "batteries included" enough to avoid this kind of risk.
Also what is the capitol cost to stand up a golf course vs. a solar farm of equal size? I would imagine solar requires locking up a much larger investment.
Your main point still stands, but aren't both of them renewable? Corn is a renewable resource, thus ethanol derived from it is too. It's just seemingly a much less efficient renewable fuel for powering a car compared to solar.
But in this case, isn't the whole pitch that the agent has access to all your data (and the network!) so it can fluidly perform any task you ask of it?
Either the agent needs to be a superuser, with all the attendant risks... or you go the Windows Vista route and constantly prompt users to approve every single access need, which we've all seen how that turns out.
Some highlights from the abstract:
- Analyzes fact-check requests on X (Grok and Perplexity)
- "exposure to LLM fact-checks meaningfully shifts belief accuracy" comparable to the degree observed in studies of professional fact-checking
- 54.5% of Grok ratings and 57.7% of Perplexity ratings agreed with human fact-checkers ("significantly lower than the inter-fact-checker agreement rate of 64.0%"). But "API-access versions of Grok had higher agreement with fact-checkers"
- "Responses to Grok fact-checks are polarized by partisanship when model identity is disclosed, whereas responses to Perplexity are not"
- "Users requesting fact-checks from Grok are much more likely to be Republican than Democratic, while the opposite is true for fact-check requests from Perplexity – indicating emerging polarization in attitudes toward specific AI models."
- "posts from Republican-leaning accounts are more likely to be rated as inaccurate by both LLMs"
- Grok and Perplexity "strongly disagree" (one rates a claim as true and the other as false) 13.6% of the time
The 3D printers don't generate the plans for the gun for you though. If someone sold a printer that would – happily with no guardrails – generate 3D models of CSAM from thin air and then print them, I bet they'd be investigated too. Or for that matter a 3D printer that came bundled with a built-in library of gun models you could print with very little skill...
3D printers don't synthesize content for you though. If they could generate 3D models of CSAM from thin air and then print them, I'm sure they'd be investigated too if they were sold with no guardrails in place.
Another thread here also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46647307
Jared Kushner's investment firm Affinity Partners is also involved in the bid, along with their partner the Saudi Arabia sovereign wealth fund...
Slightly larger discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45966561
Or:
_Economists, psychologists say compensation may not be as powerful an incentive as assumed_
or:
_Economists, psychologists say compensation not as powerful an incentive as often assumed_
Just in case: worth noting that honey is quite dangerous for infants because of the high risk of botulism, which infant immune systems struggle to fight off.
From the standpoint of nearly every individual company, it's still better to go with a well-known high-9s service like AWS than smaller competitors though. The fact that it means your outages will happen at the same time as many others is almost like a bonus to that decision — your customers probably won't fault you for an outage if everyone else is down too.
That homogeneity is a systemic risk that we all bear, of course. It feels like systemic risks often arise that way, as an emergent result from many individual decisions each choosing a path that truly is in their own best interests.
Sounds like the way they're obtaining it without a subpoena is by simply purchasing it from a commercial data broker, though. If that's true, I'd say the real problem is that a broker is willing to sell virtually anyone this data with essentially no oversight – a problem that's sadly existed for quite a while already. One of their buyers being the government isn't the first-order problem there.
Is "enforcing the law" what ICE has actually been doing lately, though?
Isn't the idea that maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates are somewhat in tension with each other though? Which would mean the mandate is to balance those three things – e.g. maximize employment to the extent possible while maintaining stable prices and moderate interest rates.
The retaliatory tariffs if we did would be devastating for the US, because so much of our overall trade balances are carried by services rather than tangible goods.
Larger thread with 600+ comments:
There's a larger discussion with 600+ comments here: