bsza

They clearly used the one from XKCD.

https://xkcd.com/221

> Say you want to do self-custody, what is then the best option?

A $5 USB stick with Tails on it. You can make as many clones as you want, so no need for a recovery phrase. It's not specialized hardware, so there's no incentive for anyone to look for money on it (plus it's encrypted). If you want to be extra tinfoil hat, make sure you only plug it into an air-gapped machine and copy any output (address, transaction hex etc.) onto another USB.

It might be easier to learn, but it's definitely not easier to read. It takes up many times more space both vertically and horizontally and it gives you very little visual cues in both dimensions. I mean, good luck telling apart a fifth and a sixth on a piano roll, or even telling which octave you're in. Sheet music is something you can sight-read, with enough practice.

(I also feel obligated to point out that an A sharp and a B flat are not the same note, they just happen to have the same pitch IF you're using equal temperament. And even then, the difference is important and understanding it IMO gives you more freedom as a musician to write what you actually want to write.)

Because something titled "How to X" is usually supposed to teach you an optimal way to do X. Like, technically you can also get rid of centipedes by burning down your house, but an article titled "How to get rid of centipedes" is unlikely to tell you that.

Worth mentioning we also had to shut down the largest block in our largest gas power plant on the exact same day due to an unrelated error.

https://www.dert.hu/hu/sajtoszoba/0/141 (in Hungarian, couldn't find an English source)

If the blurred text has anything to do with the original, I'd rather they just blacked it out. I think I can read parts of it (plus most blurring algorithms are known to be pretty bad at destroying information).

I'm not your therapist, take this question to them. And I'm not trying to weasel out of anything. You asserted that, in the past, merely claiming that the Earth revolves around the Sun was met with getting burned at the stake by a mob of priests foaming at the mouth. I corrected that, because it's a myth. Please stop sneering at centuries/millenia-old people compared to whom you live like a king, and find another group of people to feel superior to.

You haven’t even bothered to look up what actually got him executed, have you.

People weren’t as ignorant back then as you think. They had very good reason to reject heliocentrism, namely that constellations don’t grow and shrink in size as the earth moves around. That, they said, would require the universe to be unimaginably big and empty, much more so than any other observation they could make at the time would suggest.

If you have the time, I recommend reading Pliny’s Natural History. I think it really shows how much more open-minded these people were than we give them credit for. They just didn’t have the technology we have.

It's a completely different story. For cars, it happened because of relentless pressure from the auto lobby. It took years of propaganda from oil companies, car makers etc. to make us think the road is for cars [1]. We demolished and rebuilt entire cities to accommodate cars, partly because they gutted the public transport sector [2]. This made our infrastructure so hostile to our own bodies that we have no choice but to use cars now. We bought their products because they forced them down our throats. There is nowhere near that kind of pressure behind the adoption of... oh dear lord.

[1] https://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2022/06/how-lobbyis...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_consp...

I definitely did not mean using it as a prescription drug for a known condition. I meant using it without any medical indication, like many of us do. We know that amphetamines can lead to cognitive impairment [1] [2]. We know much less about reliance (over-reliance?) on AI, but what we know doesn't look good either [3] [4]. Of course, if you already live with a condition that makes it hard to concentrate, the benefits can outweigh the risks. But for most people they don't.

(Aside wrt being more effective with something than without: this is anecdotal, but my paragliding instructor once said that modern wings are often designed to correct for various pilot errors. He advised against buying those because he had seen people make worse mistakes after getting accustomed to them. In his own words: "you become dumber under a smart wing". Sharing because I think this applies to many things in life.)

[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3639428/

[2] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2670101/

[3] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S074756322...

[4] https://www.dailycal.org/news/campus/academics/failing-grade...

This might be a very naive take on my part, but I don't think of vibecoding as a competitor to actual coding the same way I don't think of doing amphetamines (even if they make you more productive in the short term) as a competitor to being clean. I think it's a self-destructive behavior that is ultimately going to degrade your critical thinking skills, especially if you're a beginner. As with everything, the smarter your tools, the dumber you get. People often claim to acquire "higher level thinking" skills from it (as do meth users), but even if that's true, they are also currently teaching those skills to the very tools that try to replace them.

The question is why would you fare any better if you don't use it. I don't know how it will play out, but this much I know: I will never pay for AI music, because I can replicate it for free. I'm still buying music from real musicians (in fact tons more than ever before), because I can't. Similarly, I have contributed to many FOSS projects (both financially and in PRs), but will not (knowingly) do the same for the ones that are vibecoded. Whether that will amount to anything or is just a fart in the wind, we'll see.

> In reality, we have the opposite: the post-Claude releases have way fewer commits than the pre-Claude ones.

No, they don't, you just made that up.

> What different metric would you suggest that would change the conclusion?

What would be a lot more useful to know is whether or not the original prompt used to generate this post instructed you to do a fair and unbiased review of these bugs, and whether or not that prompt itself was framed in a fair and unbiased way. If you take a piece of paper and write "therefore Claude is not at fault" at the bottom, then nothing you write above that line is admissible, no matter how well-reasoned.

No Claude, it still makes zero sense as a metric.

A commit is a measure of nothing. Severity weighted bugs per unit of nothing? What does that even mean? In any repo it's trivial to achieve a sev/10c that's arbitrarily close to zero while completely ruining everything.

I suggest you practice some humility and update your conclusion instead of updating the mental gymnastics you used to arrive at the same conclusion.

I would advise against using it. The code it returns comes from real public repos, so including it in your work could lead to copyright issues. You'd probably be better off asking an LLM to come up with gibberish.

Sure, until it gets to the point where you're no longer able to just "buy a piece of hardware". Then it'll suddenly sound like a pretty sweet deal. Like when Nvidia nerfed ETH mining back when that was still a thing. That too was done to give more people access to hardware, not to take away their freedom.

Not counting tests, we haven't seen one in action in over 80 years. If we could practice this level of caution with AI, that would be a great start.

It's math that requires an obscene amount of compute. If it's possible to make DRM chips that don't let you play pirated movies and GPS chips that shut down when going too fast, then I reckon it's also possible to make GPUs that shut down when they encounter anything that looks like a transformer. The problem is regulatory, not technical.

> AI is here to stay

I've seen this mantra repeated over and over again with the exact same wording, and it's starting to sound like some kind of psy-op.

How about we start reasoning from here instead: Humans are here to stay. Whether or not we'll allow AI to stay is a function of whether or not it serves our collective interest.

Nothing morally wrong about finding an exploit in a system, it's what allows you to make it more secure in the future. Perhaps the most ethical course of action would have been to disclose this to Google/OAI first (which I don't know whether or not has happened), but I find that optional in this case since this isn't really a vulnerability in the conventional sense.

Wasn't it designed that way so you can pass it off as a toy in situations like that? It even comes with games and a dummy mode that hides everything except the tamagotchi screen.

We generally don’t allow cockroaches to thrive in the spaces we claim for ourselves. Question is how much space (economic or otherwise) will AI claim for itself and whether there will be any left for us.

Would you prefer if someone did the same thing and kept it to themselves (or sold it to the highest bidder)? I think knowing it exists is better than not knowing it exists.

They were right back then because these tools didn't exist yet, and they're right today because they do now.

What even is your point? Are you... mad because the truthiness of a statement can change over time?

It definitely doesn’t help that prints from filament printers are very porous, 100% infill or not. Maybe sealing it with epoxy after printing would help?

It's also probably easier to migrate to if you have complex workflows as Forgejo Actions is designed to be similar to GH Actions. (Never actually tried it myself though, I switched to Woodpecker long ago.)

I have nothing against open weight models, my issue is more with these mega-corporations posing as saviors of humanity. That said, how is your consumer hardware going to out-compete a datacenter when it has more mouths to feed per token than a datacenter? Who is going to give you money to run anything when a machine can do everything you can do?

No matter how you spin it, we humans are now becoming thermodynamically less efficient versions of LLMs. We contribute nothing of value to the system, so economics dictates we have no place in it except as investors. Skill is nothing now, and ownership is everything. So yeah, I'm afraid of the future. Call it FUD or whatever, I don't care.

Nice find. I'm going to print this and put it on my wall.

You open with an insult directed at the HN community. Then you call me names. Then you lecture me about HN guidelines. Then you post this.

Flagging because this kind of language has no place on HN.

It is not “absurdist” to call out a baseless claim that doesn’t take into account over half of humanity, a percentage that will grow even further once investor money inevitably runs out. If your response to that is to wave away more than 4 billion people, then you’re not even trying to look like you care about reality, you’re just trying to make yourself feel better with some made-up nonsense.

You seem to be under the misconception that you somehow “own” ChatGPT or are entitled to the insight it provides. You don’t and you aren’t. You are at the mercy of trillion-dollar private companies that owe you nothing. Their products’ intelligence is not your intelligence. Whatever profits you’re seeing from it, it’s currently losing them money. And when that changes, so will your image of them as benefactors of humanity who make intelligence available to all.