caaqil

> It seems natural that the models would be explicitly trained to excel at all sorts of ML related tasks as a result. Is this one of those tasks, or is this emergent?

Maybe there's some general capability, call it g, that can explain all the underlying capabilities and improvements, including on ML tasks? Huh, I am getting a bit of déjà vu here.

Academic competitiveness doesn't explain all the hysteria and why those at the top of the field (Field Medal and all) wrote that breakup letter over AI. There seems to be this distinctly toxic trait common among math and CS folks where you don't see work as work, like the median worker, but as intrinsically linked to your self-worth and reason for existence. Literally a math academic crying while being interviewed on AI impact, talking about not knowing what to do with himself.

Who knew 2-3 SD won't save you from being a pattern matcher that can't stand to see a better one.

What if I told you nothing new is happening? Except casuals are noticing what the industry knew and saw for decades?

Script kiddies aren't new. Metasploit has been around literally decades. vx-underground existed for years, not to mention older open source projects that collect all known malware dev tools. APTs have been pwning stuff, script kiddies have been doing their thing. Nothing significant has changed for anyone in the know.

Just because LLMs automated some offensive stuff doesn't mean there's gonna be new magic collapse of society.

Your first sentence would lead one to believe that you have some substantial evidence to demonstrate the ignorance and falsehood you identified. It's impressive that you are regurgitating the same formulaic-template set of cliches that boil down to "X is so complex bro, how can you even?".

Note that I never claimed aviation relies on AI right now, most of the Autopilot systems are deterministic automation systems, but the original point stands regardless.

Rent seeking has a specific definition and it fits here. When Autopilot does almost all the critical work needed (besides announcing frivolous stuff in carbon-based voice), and you have mandatory seats for humans to babysit the Autopilot mainly to satisfy some law, the term fits.

I am not convinced humans can do much better in "disasters" than Autopilot, despite the emotional stories to the contrary (survivorship bias is one hell of a drug).

Aviation is different because their rent-seeking is enforced by the required legal hedging. I'm not sure the same incentive structure exists in the software side of things.

In other words, we might need to find some hobbies.

> I’m getting so many 1Password prompts for agents pulling env variables out of it and with very little context of what is being accessed by who

This is a one-sentence horror story. I almost can't believe someone would let this happen, unless the 1Password account is not important (highly unlikely).

> this model is dead, grab the cash and go.

[citations needed]

> It's like your highschool having a wall of notable graduates, and having your likeness taken down

So, basically inconsequential stuff only the juvenile should worry about? Agreed.

Appealing to complexity is always fun. Just throwing "a lot" in there for good measure and you won't have to think about practical security implications.

> did you not expect this conversation to go into training or at least review?

Use it for training/review (RLHF, whatever) and "we load the whole thread, not the specific response or surrounding few prompts, and store it for 5 years" seem completely different things. It's not obvious why being tech savvy would automatically make one aware that the 2nd version is happening.

Who actually cares? Isn't the whole premise of the AI revolution just gorging ourselves with other people's data so we can have AGI? I was under the impression that we have accepted this sacrifice with OAI and friends leading the way.

The trick to a top HN comment is to basically reflexively react to the title with no regard for the substance of the relevant article. Amusingly, pointing out this self-evident truth is itself frowned upon and more offensive than the described trick, according to the sacred text.

I am not sure you're disagreeing with the parent comment. Both your comments boil down to the same conclusion, and your "well actually, reality is so complex, more at 10" reply is just a rehash of the comment's main premise, ignoring the dramatic opening in the reply.

> Unix and Linux solved all this even before Alexander III of Macedon started wearing his nappies

I mean, didn't Linux shells invent pop-up fatigue? I thought we (yes, we) all used to -y flag preemptively so the upgrades and installations/setups go through. Linux really did do it first, the agents are just more needy and their popups more verbose now, but not exactly new.

VM isn't a silver bullet.

> perhaps you need more so that one being stupid doesn't effect so much.

So you create more surface area for vulnerability? We might already be at or close to the sweet spot. Security is hard.

It's not a really a bait, dang. Unless going against the chorus is considered bait. Couple of one liners from today is hardly evidence of malicious flamebait.

But I shall read the sacrad guidelines again, it's been a while.

I have a different take. Rudeness is like beauty or art: you can't meaningfully describe it or quantify it (don't overthink this part). So, we should consider the possibility that what seems rude to you is an art in itself and you should congratulate me for making you feel that/something (even though it wasn't rude: it's paradoxical, hence true art)

[flagged]

> The use of Ebury and the broad collection of unencrypted data point to a financially motivated crime group.

Collection of unencrypted data points to other players as well that have been known to have great interest in Tor exit nodes etc., but they're careful and not usually this noisy, so probably newgen trolls.

[flagged]

> I just got tired of having to read tons of documentation for fragmented libraries and frameworks

> AI is a "solution" to that

Reading AI documentation/notes is better then? Or is the implication that you can oneshot all apps/code without reading the claudespeak that explains it?

In other news, there's never been a better time to be a software developer. Come to think of it, there's also never been a better time to invest in learning copy-editing and proof-reading as a side hustle. It's a Brave New World. Everything is fine, the demand just got expanded, the pie got bigger, nothing more. New doors will be opened, nothing has changed; in fact, everything improved. Stochastic parrots are no match for our carbon-based g.

It's funny how AI has suddenly caused this great awakening in developers/mathematicians: that building stuff or working on purely technical stuff wasn't their actual value, but rather "taste", "understanding", "deciding what to or not to build" etc. It's like the parts of the field that were janitor-adjacent have suddenly being elevated and they now define the field. This transition happened so fast that it'd make your head spin if you're paying attention.

> Fantastic take.

I thought so too, makes you fuzzy and stuff inside. I wonder if this person behind X template is limited to software though? Curious if we can feel the aura of the sweatshop workers' "experiences, perspectives and hopes and dreams" while using our smartphones and gadgets. It's nice to think about, isn't it? AI couldn't replicate these intangible and difficult-to-quantify delights.

> greatly accelerated production of certain parts of math should increase the demand for people to do the remaining parts

So the pie just gets larger? Large enough to outpace the displacement? I am gonna wait for this to generalize then, looking forward to AI giving us more software developers, mathematicians, etc. The economic laws have been broken. It's an infinite money glitch, as they used to call it.

> Without humans who understand mathematics, there is, quite literally, no human mathematics—a fundamental part of human culture. If we agree that we should not abandon mathematics because poorly understood machines bruise our anthropocentric vision of it, then society will need more mathematicians, not fewer. Like… a lot more.

This is just incoherent. Even if we "agree" (we don't but...) not to "abandon" math, how does it follow that "we need a lot more mathematicians" exactly?

Even if you reject the idea that AI can displace the current top quartile/percentile of human mathematicians, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that it will at least displace some parts of math so that there'll be less demand for mathematicians overall, not more? The mental gymnastics are astounding here.

> things that makes monads notoriously difficult to explain to people outside of the Haskell ecosystem

Huh, I thought a monad is just a monoid in the category of endofunctors, what's the problem?

What "guardrails" specifically ensure that? I assume you have a more interesting idea than simply suggesting more tests.

> Think of the On Trusting Trust problem, the need to verify firmware, etc.

I mean that's too abstract and philosophical of a problem when talking about voting machines/software: there are much more prevalent and concrete risks including but not limited to APT-grade breach/espionage if your country is important enough, and the various other issues (some in your comment itself).