BugsJustFindMe

End of software at least. I don't see the internet changing much (from a 80s-90s-00s framework perspective, the internet is already over anyway).

It's naive to think that you can enumerate all the interactions of complex software like a modern game purely by observation let alone over a network link. Anyway all you're proposing here is an even more rapid industry death.

People keep saying that closed source software will be dead soon, but I'm pretty sure that commercial open source software will also be dead and all that will be left of a profitable profession will be some fraction of non-enumerable SaaS interactions live-streaming pixels to thin clients.

As a thought experiment, how many companies do you know that make enough positive revenue to recoup development and marketing costs from a completely open source download that doesn't rely on something other than the open source software itself for profitability, like a proprietary component or some kind of hosting or network or human support service to drive value? I can think of none.

Screen-sharing, not code-sharing.

Every possible thing! We can't even enumerate every possible thing in chess with a compact set of rules let alone every possible thing in something like Red Dead Redemption with unbounded complexity. "Thing" is not "what happens when you shoot an enemy". "Thing" is "what happens when you shoot this particular enemy in this particular place at this particular in-game time and this particular not-in-game time after doing this particular long sequence of other very particular things".

Without decompilation, it's impossible to say that you've experienced every aspect of a game. So AI will be able to build something that approximates part of the game from video of gameplay, but it will not be able to completely build the game with reliable consistency.

Those are both irrelevant to whether a "yet" response is inane. The claim is "A will happen". The response is _not_ "A will not happen" but rather "A has not happened yet". Do you not see the disconnect?

"Car driving toward cliff edge hasn't gone off cliff edge yet."

Whatever your feelings about small AI models, "it hasn't happened yet" is a really dumb reaction to a prediction about a rapidly advancing future.

> you cannot "look" at API.

An API may be considered to be a specification or even an implementation of a specification, and you can look at a specification, implement a specification, and even look at an implementation of a specification all without using the implementation of the specification to extract data from behind the curtain.

Anyway, public things and spaces often disallow specific uses or uses by specific people. Like a park where you're not allowed to take your dog. Access is not the same as permission.

> The person is allowed to walk to your door.

Not if you notify them of a restraining order saying otherwise. We have a number of social and legal constructs facilitating the establishment of situationally-adaptive permission boundaries.

In relation to banned entitlement, they talk about being logged in or anonymous, which are technical details pertaining to the ability to enforce, as though the technical enforcement details are what create a ban.

If I ban you from my house and you show up in disguise, you may be able to get in, but you are still not entitled to be there.

> Where's the limit of that?

The very obvious answer is that penalty is commensurate with suitable advance notice of authorization limits. It's why there are rules about things like how to post "no trespassing" signs when access boundaries are not otherwise clear. But you're also allowed to notify and make someone leave your property if they wander in.

> but sue anyone

There are two very different kinds of "sue anyone". There's sue them to extract resources from them and there's sue them to make them stop. This is the latter not the former. Treating them as though they aren't wildly different is an error.

You effectively just asked whether I should be allowed to escort someone off my property without harm if they accidentally enter it. Yes, because it doesn't harm them in relation to what they didn't know in advance.

Indeed. You can look at the shape of the API but not extract things through it. Look, sometimes seeing and using are the same thing, but calling an API, which causes the machine running the API to do work in response to the call, is not the same thing as looking at the API.

You are conflating technical feasibility with permission.

> if X has a public API and Nitter is using it

Public as in being visible to all is not the same as public as in allowing use by all. You appear to be conflating the former definition with the latter. For example, my front door is visible to all, but a person isn't allowed to walk into my house without permission.

I've never encountered a soy or pea protein that didn't make flavor noticeably worse. Whey protein isolate can be made essentially flavor neutral.

None, unless you happen to enjoy installing the same thing over and over again on the same machine.

> "zerobrew does the relocation in-process and links from a content-addressed store"

Ok, but why a new app for that instead of a PR for brew?

> "I don't think automating tasks necessarily means eliminating a profession"

The automating can/does/will expand faster than the needs can. Where those lines fully cross may be in the future for many professions, but it's not _infinitely_ in the future for any of them.

> "I mean what do you think about the AI companies losing billions and billions every year, don't you think at some point they will just not have it anymore?"

None of them lose money on inference though. The reason frontier AI labs lose money right now is because they're economically forced to keep pushing the frontier on their own, but that's a different problem than running a model that already exists. That conversation can become longer than I really want to type out, so I'm just going to point you to the profitable open weight hosts and hope you recognize the truth of it.

One of four futures awaits:

1) The government steps in and consolidates/nationalizes/subsidizes frontier AI development and allows it to be used to replace human labor.

2) The government steps in and consolidates/nationalizes/subsidizes frontier AI development but does not allow it to be used to replace human labor.

3) Frontier development moves into the open because the proprietary frontier labs have all died, and the only major businesses left are profitably running open model inference at some future capability level greater than today's that continues to be driven forward through public research and open models.

4) Frontier development ceases completely somehow, and the only businesses left are profitably running open model inference at some future capability level greater than today's.

1 and 3 are equally destructive. 2 and 4 are implausible (4 is still bad though).

> What do you guys think?

Your survival under capitalism depends on you being needed. And if right now AI helps you do things, tomorrow AI makes you unnecessary. The thing to worry about here isn't AI. The thing to worry about here is a society that has no plan to stop forcing everyone to labor to eat while simultaneously devaluing their labor.

There are three important analytic boundaries:

1) Some people are less employable right now because of AI.

2) The limit approaching everyone else will be less employable in the future because of AI if it keeps progressing (this includes even manual labor eventually), and we have no reason yet to believe that it won't keep progressing.

3) AI might suddenly stop progressing for unpredictable reasons, but right now that doesn't seem likely.

I see you added a button (thanks!), but that doesn't solve the information problem where the person won't know why it isn't working and that they need to click the button. I suggest a simple highlighted message right above or below the image. Your "holds the first frame for anyone who prefers reduced motion" blurb is _buried_, and in my case I didn't even know that I had that enabled.

I see nothing being animated because my system is set to prefer reduced motion. That's a cool accommodation, but I wish at least the demo page made that more obvious.

Also, the art scenes section is not ASCII.

> No need for experimentation

Well, first, the post alludes that a number of experiments have been done already. Singapore is given as a relatively large example.

https://www.nea.gov.sg/corporate-functions/resources/researc...

But that's not really the important thing about the post. The important part is that it takes 15 years of systemic confusion for companies to even get to the point of being allowed to do the small trials to try to answer the question of ecological impact.

> Does it satisfy the rule of two?

One to embody power, the other one to crave it?

I'm confused about the connection.

I think you've missed the point, which is that a system that cares at all about mass human suffering should be literally racing to rapidly aggregate results of small scale experiments to build the confidence needed to do larger ones, and the system is not currently doing that.

We know that the current ongoing cost of mosquito-borne disease is hundreds of millions of people being debilitated and hundreds of thousands of torturous deaths every year.

Given that there's not really an objective measure of the trueness of a threat, this seems like the sort of thing that a court decides the merit of after charges, though.

> "may view it"

If we assume that "may" here means "could somehow" and not "is authorized to", the legal action after revelation seems correct as written (ignoring whether the person viewing it has any relation to the person being threatened) unless the law gets struck down as unconstitutional. The question is only whether Anthropic should or should not report it.

> "If I write ... It was clearly intended to be a private note!"

The law as written doesn't appear to distinguish about intent of privacy. Also, if you're in the habit of writing notes to yourself, I guess maybe don't write down the one that says you're going to shoot up the sheriff's office.

YSK, there are like 4000 species of mosquito and this is talking about getting rid of only a small number of them. There would still be lots of mosquitoes.

> "Your saying we do things that save human lives, irrespective of the outcome?"

In fact, no, they did not say that. They said that the considered balance of the merits strongly favors eradicating the 2% of mosquito species that carry human diseases for someone who gives greater weight to the benefit of saving a billion human lives[0] than to the cost of some trout eating the thousands of other mosquito species instead.

[0] - 700 million contracted mosquito-borne illnesses each year worldwide. Death isn't the only consequence of significance.

Another person discovers the binary certificate cartel.

The comparison to solar is incomplete, because nuclear and coal aren't sunlight-dependent. You need to compare solar + energy storage. I know that solar generation is cheaper. Is it still cheaper with storage?