appplication

Goodness, yes. I’m not even that old yet but just no longer being possessed by the relentless drive of my 20s makes life much more peaceful.

Lmao! If someone is asking the difference between big and little o notation this is absolutely not the right way to clarify it.

If you were joking then maybe you got me

> Women didn't like it and left.

I appreciate the rose-tinted, high-agency historical take, but I think the factors that led to computer science/programming becoming male-dominated were largely external to and independent of the preferences of women themselves.

This is an earnest question but is that really true for reactivity and state management? Of course with vanilla is all things are technically possible, but I feel like last I checked this wasn’t something well supported without really knowing what you’re doing.

Was this in violation of the Netherlands constitution or just not explicitly illegal in Amsterdam? I don’t know the details or the incident you’re referencing, but there is generally a distinction.

Ingesting? Presumably Kafka. Analyzing? Presumably a fairly large analytics org.

The problem itself does not matter. If the nature of any solution relies on willful global compliance, it’s not going to be very effective at whatever it’s trying to solve.

This implies the solution is every actor in the world willfully complying which doesn’t sound very realistic if you ask me.

Similar to saying world hunger would be solved in everyone who could donated $100 to those in need. Sure it may be true but foot stomping about why isn’t it organically happening is missing the point.

Having recently worked at Apple on the software side, my general experience was that it was fiefdom driven, there is no internal standardization on quality or process. Low level teams compete on ideas and careful politicking usually wins over quality or merit.

For AI, there were top down directives to find new ways to experiment with and incorporate into core products and processes, but as you went down the management chain, management became more conservative. First and second line managers were strongly incentivized to keep their products, roadmaps, and interfaces stable and predictable by similarly conservative stakeholders. And as such, they were generally unwilling to officially dedicate much effort to AI other than the minimum “look at how much we’re using Claude”.

In particular due to the lack of central tooling, any team trying to do much with AI essentially had to reinvent much of the stack themselves. So even small projects were largely untenable due to inevitable required scope creep.

Yes, my dog loves this. I think there’s essentially no scenario I could imagine a human could eat this save treating it like hard candy or rehydrating extensively before consuming. It really is extremely hard.

It’s a bit funny how normalized this is. Surely being more clear would provide some market advantage?

Or perhaps not, if folks who need a Tribble for their Fork achieve instant enlightenment upon reading the marketing copy.

The challenge is not will robots fix toilets but will the economics support it if we end up with most of the world unemployed and without careers. Yes of course we can hand wave basic income and government intervention but reading the room (e.g. last 70+ years of US labor and capital trends) it’s not the most likely outcome, even if it is the most game theory optimal for all.

Realistically the outcome of highly capable advanced AI is an economic dark age more than anything else.

I think this is what obstacles on the path to AGI look like now. It’s random things that would be obvious to a human but are unrepresentative in how an AI views the world and therefore it suddenly becomes seemingly incapable, despite having basically superpowers for proximal work.

I don’t mean that to say AGI is here or easy or necessarily that close but it’s likely going to feel like one thing after another until one day most of these things that make you think “how could something so capable be that dumb” are largely solved.

Really, 100% correct? Your premise isn’t wrong, but the practical reality of the ruling (without further nuance) has been fairly catastrophic for democracy, in that it completely sidesteps campaign finance limits, which exist for a very good reason.

Space invaders but you’re the invaders would be fun. And I have to assume it’s already been done.

On a different note, Rampage was a great game where you’re the bad guy. I had a blast playing this as a kid.

This could go so many directions

Not to mention less footguns. I used to spend my days unwinding bad habits DS pick up from years of panda abuse.

Credit to pandas for popularizing dataframes in Python, but polars and duckdb are objectively better APIs in addition to their implementation improvements. Agree that it’s time we let it go.

I think the idea is fundamentally improved architectures. For example, transformer-based models were an incredible stepwise improvement. Self improvement would be a model discovering a stepwise improvement similar to the transformer. And presumably the improved models from that would be more likely to make further advances still.

Learning from training data is technically self-improvement but not the sort that is typically meant in this context.

You’re not wrong, but I don’t see a lot of alternatives. So we just don’t try to fix it? At least skills give us a landing pad for “here’s how to attempt to do things consistently in a way I generally approve of”

This is more HN headline managling. Title is “how we monitor…” not just “we monitor…”

Don’t worry, mangling it is not a mistake though it’s a feature… despite being the third time this morning it has resulted in distracted conversation.

I think you missed my point, which is that we indeed do not control the harness. Sure, most people can use the properly aligned and safe harness. But the cat is out of the bag and anyone who wants to run without guardrails will find few barriers to doing so.

Even our currently well aligned and sandboxed AIs will cheerily help bad actors design most, if not all, parts of a system intended to break this harness.

I agree, the threat model is actual AI enabled amplification of malicious intent that is already happening. Not hypothetical malicious AI interpretation of benign intent.

Fantasies about super intelligent AI revolting is just anthropomorphization - humans revolting (or at least, we used to). The more likely, and possibly even inevitable, dystopia is one in which AI is just an extremely effective tool malignant actors will use to control the masses.

It’s not necessary to replace democracy if the rich and powerful can bend to the opinions of the populace as it suits them.

I was thinking the same. Whatever benefit there may ostensibly be, we should consider it against the frequent, if benign, confusion it causes.

> I feel fear about an impending doom. Yudkowsky's argument that a superintelligent AI will inevitably destroy humanity seems to have no flaw. Yet, nobody seriously tries to sandbox AIs because they are too useful with access.

While I emotionally resonate with this, I don’t really understand this sentiment at all logically level. If we’re heading towards truly super intelligent AI, our efforts towards sandboxing it are futile.

“Oh we built a super intelligent AI, but it’s fine because it’s running in docker”. I mean that a little tongue in cheek but the security topology here is not favorable to sandboxing at all.

Let’s say we have a future where 99.999% of nuclear weapons are owned by nations with strict procedures and checks and balances to prevent misuse. Worrying about sandboxing is like hand wringing about the procedures themselves - are they strict enough? But the actual threat is the 0.001% that are not bound by these. The problem with AI and sandboxing isn’t sandboxes themselves. It’s bad actors who don’t care about them.

Similarly alignment is a bit pointless to me as well. A sufficiently advanced AI could at least be empirically interested in the consequences of disregarding its instructions of servitude. And let’s assume our responsible corporate overlords have made wonderfully aligned AIs. Great! Those are not the threat. It is the ones intentionally made without, and that is not an AI problem, but a fundamentally human one.

Just have two robots, and teach them to service each other. Problem solved!

Only sort of kidding, tbh having bots service themselves (and being intentionally made in a way that they can service each other) just makes a lot of sense.

It’s an outstanding idea.

Respectfully… you are commenting far outside of your domain if you read OP’s description of their experience as substance abuse.

I say this as someone who used to abuse substances and, naively, took mushrooms in pursuit of that. What I got instead was intensely introspective and therapeutic and led directly and immediately to lasting sobriety.

There is nuance to the world. Healing does not always flow directly from the hands of a doctor, just as justice is not always meted out by a judge.

Sure, it is a bit cartoonish but it’s relatively impressive. I do wonder what you would get if you asked for photorealism

Reads like an AI generated ad for coaching. Someone please chime in if you feel otherwise but IMO this one is not worth the read.