andy99

I assume this is about dark patterns but can’t confirm as I’m faced with a cookie wall where I can select from “Manage” and “Accept All”.

You seem to misunderstand the concept of liberal democracy.

Is this real? In my browser I couldn’t click on anything, and I find the whole thing questionable - that so many incidents were sourced seemingly so quickly and with such variety. Would like an easier way to verify if this is real and am leaning towards it’s not.

Identify who your buyer is. It’s probably not a technical person (and thus HN isn’t a great place to advertise).

Talk to operational people if you are interested in finding operational pain. Tech teams will tell you they are working on it and don’t need help, or at best want to hire an IC. (If that’s what you want then just approach it as a job search)

For the same reason, hours are a bad unit of time and a bad giveaway. You want to be able to offer a free diagnostic or something - nobody’s waiting with operational pain and a plan to fix it that they want to start paying for. You need to help with the plan and show them what they need.

Just my $0.02 of course, circumstances may vary

Saw this earlier today, I think it’s very flawed and ideological, unfortunately other posts mentioning this got flagged.

First there’s the idea that “nurturing” is somehow what kids need and better for them automatically, that whatever a stereotypical man does with kids is bad for them, and we need to be rewired by pheromones or whatever to be more sensitive. And as a corollary the idea that a high-T man somehow is a worse caregiver, and that it needs to be reigned in by some adaptation. The whole thing is definitely framed for a certain world view, it’s definitely not the only interpretation.

I don’t find this disingenuous.

The more typical AI fondation model company claim of “it’s so dangerous only we and people that pay us enough should hand access” is what I think is BS.

I don’t see anything wrong with trying to understand something, which is what this seems to be about. I also don’t see anything wrong with an AI operated store generally, and it of course makes sense, and is valuable, to learn about how the limitations.

This is a question about insurance generally. Insurance for something catastrophic and very rare makes the most sense because individual premiums are low and risk is pooled. The opposite kind of insurance, and the dumbest, is getting a warranty at Best Buy (if they still exist) for 1/3 of the cost of the product, or those wheel rim warrantees. Having the product break isn’t catastrophic, and you’re not really pooling risk because the premiums cost more for you individually than you’d expect to get back if a loss happens. In those cases you’re better just setting aside the premium in the bank. But if you did this with life insurance, you would never accumulate a value anywhere near the payout.

It’s not an expansion, they are selling the shoe assets. It’s basically just starting a new business and redeploying capital (if there is any). It’s just a really odd way to announce and undertake it.

> please note I am not challenging the scientific truth of evolution

Evolution isn’t a matter of faith, you’re welcome to challenge it and try to poke holes in it.

If I’m remembering correctly, I had bought a Borland Turbo C++ compiler circa 1994 (for DOS) that came with a demo sheets application you could build and run.

Does anyone remember this, I can’t find it now.

What does one achieve with 25 GB internet? Are speeds actually usefully faster, or is there some other bottleneck that makes the practical speed the same as in the US?

Also any workload I have that is bandwidth heavy would be on clouds machines between data centres and generally very fast. Are there reasons why someone at home would benefit from 25GB internet beyond whatever is available?

Is this a case of over engineered central planning instead of a blow against the free market?

I’ve heard this, I don’t automatically believe it nor do I understand why it would need to be true, I’m still caught on the old fashioned idea that the only “thinking” for autoregressive modes happens during training.

But I assume this has been studied? Can anyone point to papers that show it? I’d particularly like to know what the curves look like, it’s clearly not linear, so if you cut out 75% or tokens what do you expect to lose?

I do imagine there is not a lot of caveman speak in the training data so results may be worse because they don’t fit the same patterns that have been reinforcement learned in.

That is gimmicky and would be an extremely low trust signal.

  Does that seem hard? I think it’s hard. The relevant physical phenomena include at least..,

In most engineering problems, the starting point is recognizing that usually one or two key things will dominate and the rest won’t matter.

I stopped reading at “ 2 bytes on a 64GB stick is embarrassing. 2 bytes in your mouse is art.”

No way to know for sure, but worth flagging.

> I saw someone get attacked with a knife, another commenter here had a gun pulled on him

I though the discussion here was about people not using their headphones on airplanes.

I don’t know if anyone remembers the movie Inside Man where at the beginning they are waiting in line at the bank and the woman is having a loud conversation on her phone and the guard comes and tells here to keep it down. It’s this kind of person that I see not using speakers (when the movie was made I don’t think they contemplated humanity could sink that low), at best it’s entitlement, but I still think in most cases it boils down to not thinking about others vs actively trying to annoy them.

Pretty sure on planes this is more ignorance than malice. It’s self absorbed people that are too selfish to consider someone else might not want to hear what they’re watching, rather than some deliberate anti society thing.

Regardless, no punishment is too harsh, this should be considered the equivalent of lighting up a cigarette on a plane.

This captures the problem, the sycophancy / preference optimization deludes people into thinking they’re on to something and posting things that don’t contribute to the discussion. It’s the “I drive better when I’m drunk” syndrome, it’s better just to outright ban it than to leave it to people’s judgement.

Does declaring a function as inline do anything for any modern compiler? I understood that this is basically ignored now and is the compiler makes its own decisions based on what is fastest.

Yeah so find a forum that’s for discussing that and discuss it there. Don’t try and force people who are discussing something else to talk about politics with you. Do you also randomly go onto GitHub issues and start talking politics because the people who are talking about repo bugs are “hiding behind a bush” and should talk about the political things you think are important instead?

> less coverage or discussion than a new version of jQuery

Pretty sure this is a feature not a bug. Most people aren’t here for political topics.

Just to add on, armchair quarterbacking is a thing, it’s easy in hindsight to label decisions as the result of bad intentions. This is completely different than whatever might have been at play in the moment and retrospective judgement is often unrealistic.

It’s an indicator of extremely low effort. I don’t think fundamentally it’s people not liking the picture, or liking it less than a stock picture (even if the all look the same) it’s just a tell that someone is being super lazy. Same as people don’t like seeing AI posts on forums like HN. It’s less a judgement about the content of the post and more about the way the poster is interacting. Everyone can use AI themselves if they wanted to see throwaway AI output so it feels condescending when it’s presented to us.

The comparison is false anyway, even if one just understands a high level language, there is no magic, you’re working in a closed system where you can understand and explain what your code is doing. There may be edge case, performance things, etc where understanding at a lower level is important but you can work completely in the abstraction.

Vibe coding, certainly as an “abstraction”, is nothing like that, you’re hoping you can get across the behavior you want, and have no visibility into what choices are actually being made with regard to how it’s specified. It’s the same as being a manager that can’t code, you’re entirely at the mercy of the people doing the actual work. That’s not true when you code without knowing semiconductor physics.

I call it “AI blindness”, people genuinely don’t see what’s bad about AI output, it happens across code, text, and images. Same as the title itself being X not Y AI slop.

I have, and your reply is a pretty weak fallback from

  The relationship between owners and workers has always been extractive. The adversarial relationship is built in.

I’m sure extractive relationships exist, but it’s certainly not an iron law of work, and I’m not even sure it’s that common in most modern workplaces.

This has almost never been my experience in ~20 years of working. Other than a few fleeting assholes, all of my work relationships have essentially been collegial, with all parties, regardless of position, looking at how we can best get the work done that’s in front of us. I’ve never felt exploited or used and never felt I was exploiting those I managed.

I think if one sees their work this way, maybe it comes true? It’s a very cynical way of looking at things.

> Issues and discussions can use AI assistance but must have a full human-in-the-loop. This means that any content generated with AI must have been reviewed and edited by a human before submission.

I can see this being a problem. I read a thread here a few weeks ago where someone was called out on submitting an AI slop article they wrote with all the usual tells. They finally admitted it but said something to the effect they reviewed it and stood behind every line.

The problem with AI writing is at least some people appear incapable of critically reviewing it. Writing something yourself eliminates this problem because it forces you to pick your words (there could be other problems of course).

So the AI-blind will still submit slop under the policy but believe themselves to have reviewed it and “stand behind” it.

   For example, authors may have given an LLM a partial description of a citation and asked the LLM to produce bibtex

This is equivalent to a typo. I’d like to know which “hallucinations” are completely made up, and which have a corresponding paper but contain some error in how it’s cited. The latter I don’t think matters.