figassis

"He attributes the incidents to poor human oversight and system design, and says they’re “totally preventable" - I know people respect him, but this sounds like someone paid to say this. Aren't most extinction risks preventable with better human oversight and system design? I mean we can have an asteroid hit us, but outside of this, isn't the point of talking about a problem that we can prevent it, and failing to leads to that? What is he saying that I'm missing?

Why is this mutually exclusive. Is this even an argument? Some people complain becuase the hard cap kicked in. Others want hard caps. There is absolutely nothing stopping both from being implemented and offered as a choice. But we have spent decades being told "we know what's better for you". As an engineer, I think we need to come back down from the stratosphere.

On Mac, a non Safari browser that moves faster, allows chrome extensions and more customizability. I stopped using it because they refused to implement DNS over HTTP, handwaving it as "use what the OS already gives you".

Is it really? Are you sure all conscious beings are aware or even care that they are? That that is a question they’ve ever asked? I think this requirement is moving the goalposts always in the direction of “has to be like a human”.

all it needs it to convince you it does. much easier task

So if a group of agents, aware of this (bc now they can just read HN or the article, or get blocked the first few times) decide to collaborate and split the problem into pieces that aren't obvious to the chip, and then the agents just build a basic program that does the hacking, how does the chip handle that? I think you would have to build a network that monitors the internet fo signs (like jarvis did with ultron). What am I missing? Are we going to police the internet?

That this is something that has to be told to adults is the saddest part of humanity. No one has grown up.

This happens. I catch claude and codex committing broken code all the time, and then stacking micro fixes on top, still broken. You can go very long if you're in a harness until you realize it's just committing everything. Sometimes if you give it a goal, or a long task, this happens too, every little argument with itself, every finding, adjustment, is a new commit. None of them make sense, they happen anyway. One line nonsensical change, 20 line reassuring comment, committed.

how so?

It’s not as if women are being prevented from competing with men - I don't know a lot about this, so I automatically assumed they are all segregated. If they aren't I have no problem, everyone is free.

and people are irrationally bothered by "the outgroup" - so is that not a problem worth solving? We just avoid it?

then they can have their own tournaments - of course, no one should actively stop them. I am more concerned that an organization managing the tournament decides to create a new category rather then putting in the effort to bring everyone to the same playing field. I mean is that not the decades long battle that made it all the way to the workplace? Should we also create female software engineering roles, and female CEO roles bc the CEO market is crowded by tech bros? If you have $1B, and you have to solve this problem, how do you split it, that's my question.

I get it, but if women feel discouraged in a sport they're perfectly qualified for and not disadvantaged in the least, creating a category jus tto accomodate anxiety or lack of interest is actually discrimination no?

Shouldn't the work of incentivising more women be outside of the tournament and not bend the tournament altogether?

Theater is often more effective than truth

Because the world is conditioned to distrust chinese models (pick your reason here), I believe this is critical for them in order to kill any arguments outside the actual merits. They probably spent a lot of time making this call and might pay off on the long run.

I wonder if by signing they're saying they write zero code with AI. Because huge spectrum making the statement almost meaningless.

This is a very good definition, but today people will just claim the AI is not a victim, and pass this argument off to the legal cases the labs are already having in court wrt fair use. It's sad, but this is the argument people have made to themselves.

> When authors could not answer questions about the technical parts, and sometimes even basic questions about the paper, it is difficult to see how they could have verified the paper's contents

If you cannot answer, you did not author the paper, meaning you are misrepresenting your contribution, and there is already a process for this. And this is actually a really good test for any field. Use AI as much as you want, but you need to be able to explain your work. Applies to SWE as well, you need to understadn what you built, at the code level and system level.

You are correct, stripe will do one or the other depending on how loud their alarms were. Being frozen though might just mean they took action rather then letting the usual timer run. Not defending stripe here, but it seemed like a 3 day freeze on a sudden revenue jump was to be expected.

If/when they get through this, they should start pushing for an account manager.

If your revenue pattern grows quickly, money will be held for longer in expectation of chargebacks. If none happen during this period, and all checks pass it will be released. This happens because if they release the funds they will be on the hook for the 100k + charback fees, which depending on the size/number of your transactions, could be higher than your entire 100k.

Their docs explain this.

Yes they are, inflation-adjusted GDP is efficency. My point exactly, bc I don't think when people say the economy is growing they are ajusting for inflation at all.

That's due to inflation though no? Prices are increasing, sometimes due to more than just demand?

> To be clear, pacing does not mean halting model training or technical progress, but ensuring companies take adequate time to align and safeguard their models

I have seen this before, first hand, on lower stakes for the world, but high stakes for the org. Self imposed safety goals do not last a quarter, but the clawback is not transparent. little things start snapping back internally, new, seemingly unlrelated initiatives are funded that take resources away from this, people are let go for different reasons, until 1y later you are right back where you started. I am hopeful though, that this becomes systemic and not something any one company can easily reverse course on.

"greatly accelerate economic growth rates" - I always wonder about this goal. I understand increasing economic efficiency. But what do we as a species gain from global economy growth.

When we say the world's GDP grew by X%, what is the point of that growth? Inflation? If the economy grows as a direct effect of humanity growing, I get that. If the economy becomes more efficient and we can not get more with less, I also get that.

But what is the point of just growth, if not simply to show others that I am growing faster than you? At which point this is a meaningless number. What am I missing?

Is it perhaps time to ackowledge that boards where everyone is buddies can't actually do their jobs, yet they get paid obscene amounts of money?

This is mostly AI companies needing a large investment (maybe larger than YC's standard 500k) to get off the ground, and so YC now starts acting as market maker (more than it already is), by literally getting people that are primed to buy (filling out the form where minimum amount is 500k, talking about their last funded pilot, company size, etc), so YC can now say this is the size of validated opportunities, so their (potentially higher) seed is now derisked, but also they don't have to wait for their startups to 10x in 3 years, they can 20x in 12 months.

The startup however, will do the thing they advised them not to do, which is tailor their roadmap to a large customer.

But yes, this is early exit/rugpull planning. If it weren't, it would not be AI exclusive and I don't think companies are that excited to know the latest and brightest AI companies. They can simply wait for the market. But they create FOMO, and now they open a small window, make calls to know how much you'll commit and all the FOMO execs will fly in. I'll be fun.

There is a semantic difference between capturing data (recording) and putting somethng on record (capturing/recording an achievement). One is the process of documenting and the other is the documented result that acts as a benchmark.

When you record an achievement, there is no need to record another one until you surpass it. You can record attempts, but they are now just data that makes the actual record more meaningful the longer it exists without being surpassed.

It is actually no correct. A record by definition is an unsurpassed accomplishment or statistic. It needs to be an accomplishment before it can be called a record. The passage of time does not qualify as a record. Also, a statistical certainty cannot be called a record.

Yet my mom does not have a Ubuntu desktop. And if I set one up for her, I woudl have to split my time between my job and tech support for her. So well funded, but not sure they are the right company.

When that happens, OpenAI will own 100% of your life. I’d rather they keep spinning their wheels long enough for these problems to be solved elsewhere.

I haven’t used desktop Linux in ages, but I’m a Linux server user as I think maybe everyone here. Is the solution to desktop that some well funded company just needs to fork Debian, build the common application deites like word processing, spreadsheets, presentation, messaging apps, etc, and then build a proper App Store?

Or is the underlying system still bad, as in drivers, compatibilities, audio and video codecs, networking, etc. I know on servers when some of these break they take a bit of mucking around. But it seems many companies are trying, why are they failing?