40four

Incorrect. As others have pointed out, BirdNet is a “traditional” neural network. The amount of compute needed to train something like this is many orders of magnitude less than an LLM. Something like this could be trained on local hardware with enough juice, or by renting a handful of GPU’s

Oh thanks for the explanation. Shows you how much I know about law!

Your feeling turned it to be correct. Amazon lost the case in the appellate court.

I don’t see why the two are mutually exclusive to be honest. I’m not a mathematician, but I’m a software engineer and whether I like it or not, AI has changed my field dramatically forever. I understand the distaste for the way AI might be affecting the field of mathematics, but the genie is out of the bottle, and it will never be the same. It just took a little longer for it to hit the math community. Software engineers have been debating and coming to terms with the new reality for a few years now.

Reader mode circumvents the pay wall on many news sites, including this one :)

Nothing. I’m going to run my 13 Pro Max into the ground. I do find the “Reference images” interesting, but not so much in going to run out and buy one. Other than than it’s the same old “everything is better” marketing shtick

The only thing that’s interesting to me about this release are the “Reference Images”. Seems like it could be a genuinely useful feature, especially in a world of AI generated content. I wonder if a similar system exists in other cameras?

Not with current technology. That was kind of the physics “trick” in the book ‘Project Hail Mary’, where the astrophage provided enough energy and propulsion to be able to sustain 1G of acceleration.

Shopify is a publicly traded company, and they own a significant share of the whole e-commerce market, they aren’t going anywhere lol :)

I grew up in prime N64 era, and played countless hours on the console. But I definitely never played, let alone even heard of the Snowboard Kids title. How did I miss this game? Am I the only one?

Don’t apologize. This was a very fascinating read, and a good technical write up, especially for you first even HN post. It’s not your fault others didn’t look at the username :)

No you are talking to the actual author of the article. It’s not weird for the author to comment on their own article

They shouldn’t have to make it “obvious”. They are the actual author of the article. It’s not their fault you didn’t double check the usernames. It’s not uncommon for authors to comment on their own articles.

I hear you guys, but it sounds like we’re taking about the default settings or “personalities” baked into the models by their creators.

Either of them will act exactly the way you want if you explicitly tell them too. Add the instructions to your own system prompt. If you don’t want a companion, say so. If you want shorter answers in a different style, tell them. They will obey :)

A few of my local parks have used this technique in their parking lots. I didn’t know they were called “geo-cells” so that’s interesting. They filled them with gravel. I imagine it was a good way to save some budget versus a traditional paved parking lot

I’ve been a Mac user since college and I’ve literally never heard of the product.

To your point, this is their blog page, not a marketing/landing page. Of course it assumes you already know what the product is.

I clicked to their actual landing page, and immediately figured out what it is! Problem solved!

Yeah I probably overreacted a little bit, I got a little fired up :) I re-read it and caught that line as well.

So Adam isn’t directly saying normal people are the problem, he does apparently believe it’s on the mega-corps, politicians, media, etc. But the end result is kind of the same.

Okay fine, maybe grifters and liars in politics and media are subduing the population into caring less about climate change. I don’t really agree with it, but let’s accept it for arguments sake. Okay now what? The thesis here is that nothing is changing because not enough people believe (even though he admits a small minority of people deny climate science), or not enough people are speaking up loudly about it.

So back where we started. Whether in our own accord, or because the media is manipulating us, he believes the crux of the problem is not enough people are getting loud and angry about climate change.

I would argue it’s more likely we’re entering into a period of “climate fatigue”. We’ve been bludgeoned over the head & brow beaten about climate change for so long, and’s seen little to no change in the systems at scale that are at the root, we’re all exhausted.

Okay great. We’re out of time. Fine, we get it. But the problem with this article, and many other similar articles, is it seems like it’s just designed to scare the shit out of us.

No call to action, no recommendations in what to do about it. It’s basically insinuating that we, the regular people, are the responsible.

As there in-lies the problem, and it makes me furious. The onus to engineer our way out of a climate catastrophe is not on the regular people. The onus is on the people who engineered is into this problem. Government, industry, politicians, scientists, literal engineers.

If this is really as urgent they say it is, then why aren’t they acting faster to retool our infrastructure? Joe Schmoe doesn’t have the ability to build more electric cars. He can’t go out and build more nuclear power plants, or build solar farms.

The problem here is every time you read an article like this you’re left feeling guilty. We’re told we’re the problem. Joe Rogan (and others) are the problem. Not the people who actually got us into this situation. The energy here is so misguided. It’s infuriating.

I love you Adam McKay and your art, but us normal folks are just living life, with the tools & systems that were engineered for us by other people. Stop telling us we’re the problem.

I’m tempted to add to this list, but Sparkle emoji has so clearly become a ubiquitous symbol for “this feature is enhanced by AI”, I’m surprised at the push back from the other commenter.

I’ve never seen or heard anyone mention sparkle emoji as a tell-tail sign of AI generated content, in the way that you hear about em-dash for example.

But I have seen the icon used in just about every website/app that wants to let you know they are using “AI” in some form or another.

I don’t disagree, Costco has a reputation for selling well vetted products, but that’s not a good comparison. I trust Costco (even their online only sales), but in no way do I trust the other merchants listed.

We’re specifically taking about merchants that have a super shady online presence. They will basically sell you anything and everything and don’t care if it harms you.

The ones mentioned (Amazon, Best Buy, New Egg), it’s going to be hard to argue they vet (or care about vetting) the digital products they sell. You might as well throw Walmart into group too, their online offerings have gotten super sketchy if you really do into it.

I’m just going to leave this here because many of us (myself included) are prone to going to comments first before finishing the post:

This post is in regards to the design aesthetics we encounter as users when we are interacting with AI. Not the aesthetics that AI outputs when we ask it to write code for us.

I also assumed it would be about what a “typical” front end output looks like from LLMs, but it’s not :)

I hate to be crass, I’m consciously trying to avoid well defined HN guidelines here, but the article is about discussing design aesthetics we encounter when we are interacring with AI not design asthetics the AI outputs when we ask it to write code for us. I get the confusion though, the title is a bit of a trick, probably on purpose

Because your home IP address is going to be associated with criminal activity. So if that’s acceptable “payment” then I guess there’s no issue

Interesting how this technological war behind the scenes probably had a disproportionately large effect on the war compared to how little you hear about it in text books or history class growing up.

The mention Turing a little bit, but I really enjoyed the movie “The Imitation Game” about Turing building the “Bombe” machine and eventually breaking the Enigma code, and the effect that had on the war. Highly recommend!

I wouldn’t think to much more on it if I were you. It’s not just this article. I’ve been getting the same feeling with other Arstechnica articles that recently trended on HN, so I think I’ll just pass when I see them for a while.

Consciousness is a topic I’m endlessly curious and fascinated about. This article seems like a good deep dive, I admit I only had the patience to skim it right now, it’s a lot of technical terms I’m unfamiliar with I’ll have to look more into later.

The problem is as humans we don’t even understand our agree on what consciousness is in the first place. So it seems silly to even begin to assert one way or the other when it comes to computers (I’m not saying the author is doing that here, they title says “If”).

I do think deeply exploring the idea could possibly help bring us closer to understanding consciousness when it comes to ourselves & other living creatures.

The author mentions they accept “panpsychism” so I take it they accept “The hard problem of consciousness”. If I understand it correctly, in a nutshell, if you accept the hard problem, you don’t believe that brain alone can “produce” consciousness. If you reject the hard problem, consciousness and mind can be fully explained by the mechanisms of the brain and science will eventually be able to prove it.

I definitely accept the hard problem, but I find myself more in the one of the “idealism” or “neutral monism” buckets. I don’t believe the field of neuroscience is ever going to scientifically explain consciousness.

The same way neuroscience was an emergent field that combined ideas from different disciplines, I think we don’t yet have a field of study that’s looking at consciousness in the right way.

Especially as programmers, it’s easy to model the brain like it’s a computer, with CPU/ RAM/ hard drive. But science doesn’t back any of that up. Take memories for example, nobody knows where they go. The brain as far as we can tell doesn’t act like a hard drive.

I think it’s much more likely there is another “layer” of reality that Consciousness & Mind lives in that our current physics doesn’t & probably can’t explain. I think it’s likely our brains act more like an antenna that receive consciousness, rather than they are “computing” it in isolation.

I’ve been playing around with some similar ideas in a couple of pet projects. I truly believe that some type of “proof of work” system like this will be the only reliable way to have confidence in human writing. The various AI “detector” software that’s out there seems to be a dead end to me.

The comment I’m speaking of was from a different user, and it’s giving a strong smell that both users are bots unfortunately. Maybe I’m wrong, maybe it’s a coincidence those exact strings of characters were formed in isolation from each other in the same thread. I hope I’m wrong, but it’s a red flag

Why is your comment exactly word for word of another comment just one level above in the comment chain?

This is a great distinction that I don’t think is getting talked about enough. “Open source” is probably the wrong term to use. Open “weights”, sure.

If your only concern is how good is it at coding, then I don’t have an issue with using the Chinese models. Especially if you want to run it locally, they are kind of the only choice.

For any other use than coding, it’s going to have to be a hard pass from me.