bobro

This article assumes that there is a person with dedicated time to validate the data. Imagine you want this data and ask for it, but the government says, “sorry, we have this data, but we read an article that said we can only publish it if we spend a lot of time validating it. This data changes frequently and we don’t have a chunk of a full-time data analyst’s salary to spend on it, so we just aren’t going to publish anything. We’d rather put out nothing than embarrass ourselves, so you can’t even try to validate it yourself.”

My favorite example of this is Joy Division. They’re the band with that cool white-on-black ridge line plot shirt. If you haven’t listened to their music before, go check it out. You probably won’t like it very much. I don’t know how many records or shirts they sold, but their ratio of shirts sold to records sold has to be one of the wildest.

So surely after Meta bought oculus, they made major advancements in the field right?

Just to try to understand this, do you think anyone should be able to make, say, a Harry Potter movie right now paying nothing to the author?

>That model is completely counter-intuitive and punitive to the consumer.

I disagree with this so much. Paying for a thing once and getting the thing is absolutely intuitive. Subscription models where you pay generally for access over a time period to a broad swath of things is counter-intuitive. I want to read a handful of articles from NYT a month. I will never sign up for a subscription for that, so I just don’t really get to read NYT articles. I’m sure there is an amount I could agree to pay for an article.

AI is good at coding because it is heavily text focused with excellent documentation and a relatively clear binary on works/doesn’t work. I wouldn’t so quickly lump all other kinds of remote work into the same bucket based on your experience coding.

Having a roommate and an annual transportation budget under $9000 probably isn’t the right demarcation line for poverty.

How do you read this article and hear indigence? It’s clearly someone grieving something personal about their own relationship with the technology.

For me, it’s not that I feel entitled to it. It’s that it’s available, and I don’t feel any moral problems with taking it.

What’s the sport for short form video?

Can you spell out more what’s wrong with distorting a market or customizing for local audiences?

One useful point of comparison here would be the percent of the driving population overall who have some THC in their system in the same way as these researchers are measuring it. I wouldn’t guess that 40% of drivers would test positive for recent THC use, but I can’t understand the 40% number here without knowing the percent for the overall population.

My guess is that most people on HN work for companies that are in some meaningful way doing the same thing. What would be called spying 50 years ago is now the bedrock of how tech either makes money or improves their products.

I would love to see this LLM try to solve math olympiad questions. I’ve been surprised by how well current LLMs perform on them, and usually explain that surprise away by assuming the questions and details about their answers are in the training set. It would be cool to see if the general approach to LLMs is capable of solving truly novel (novel to them) problems.

>So a lot of people who take this drug in the US actually pay $0 because they sign up for this card.

You do typically pay for insurance or otherwise have a reduced salary because your employer provides insurance, so saying you pay $0 isn’t really fair.

I don’t know if I’d describe safeguards against misusing electrical systems as dystopian. If a system is made for a specific purpose and misuse is highly dangerous and disruptive, I’d certainly support reasonable safeguards.

Can you spell out more why we need it now?

Or maybe we should throw them in jail.

I’d love to see a poll asking Americans: “Do you want to maintain the status quo?”

Looks like their net profit globally is like $90-100B per year. If you think of the share of profit that's coming just from the UK, this is probably very sizeable as a penalty.

Is it? What do you think?

Question for everyone:

Are you using delivery services regularly? How many times per week? Do you care about the cost?

I understand it’s popular, but I don’t use it and the people around me don’t really use it, so I feel out of touch with reality here.

Imagine if you are paying to publish an ad. One ad platform sends your ad to everyone, the other allows the most affluent users to avoid ads. If you choose the platform where affluent people won’t see your ad, you’re likely shooting yourself in the foot.

Same here. I was shocked when I first read the offer and am still shocked now that I get such a large cash back rate. It easily pays for itself.

Spoken language descriptions of how to do something are incredibly underdetermined. Many people are likely familiar with the meme of following exact instructions on making a PB&J where a phrase like “put a knife in your hand and spread the peanut butter” can result in stabbing yourself and rubbing peanut butter on the wound. More than half of my job is helping other people know or otherwise determining what they really want a program to do in the first place.

Alright. So there’s proven IP theft by the Chinese companies with completed legal proceedings?

I’m not asking broadly about difference in ethics. I’m asking specifically about IP theft in the AI space.

Can you contrast this with Western companies? What are the Chinese companies stealing that Western companies aren’t? Do you mean tech or content?

> It does 100 interviews, and it’s going to hand back the best 10 to the hiring manager, and then the human takes over,” he says.

Yikes. One thing that's incredibly important about reaching the interview-stage of a job application has been that there is a parity, or even an imbalance favoring the candidate, in human time usage. The company's people (often multiple people at once) have to spend time with the candidate to conduct the interview, so there are stakes for scheduling an interview. The company is investing something into that interaction, so you as a candidate can have some faith that your time is being valued. In the very least, your 45 minute interview is valued at 45*n minutes of company labor for each interviewer.

Admitting right off the bat that you're going to waste the time of 90% of your applicants without these stakes is just wildly disrespectful.

if AI could really one-shot important, interesting apps, shouldn’t we be seeing them everywhere? where’s the surge of new apps that are so trivial to make? who’s hiding all this incredible innovation that can be so easily generated?