HNHacker News
TopNewBestAskShowJobs

ineptech

4,324 karma · joined February 2, 2016

Currently a director of software teams, previously an sdet. You may enjoy my parody software company website, which can be found at my username followed by .com. I can be reached at dick @ that same domain.
submissionscomments
ineptech··on The electron is so round that it’s ruling out potential new particles
The old "is" strikes again. An electron is definitely not a cloud, nor a particle nor a wave, we don't know what the hell it is and stopped trying to describe it in those terms many years ago. Instead, we limit ourselves to trying to come up with models that accurately predict how they behave, and call the models useful when they predict the right answers to experiments. "All models are wrong but some are useful", as the saying goes.

Like all subatomic particles, electrons don't seem to have a discrete location; when we try to measure their location, we get different results each time, as you said. However, these apparently-random results follow a predictable pattern, so we describe it using an equation predicting where it is most likely to be found (the Schrodinger wave equation). For electrons in some stable states, that area is roughly spherical, meaning that there is some point where it is most likely to be found, a fuzzy area near that point where it is fairly likely to be found, and a distance from that point past which it is very unlikely to be found. We can therefore model the electron as being a tiny discrete thing that whizzes around in a roughly spherical area, which is the "cloud" in this article.

All that "can be modeled as" stuff is unwieldy, so people say the electron "is" a spherical cloud when they mean that modeling it as a spherical cloud is useful for understanding the matter at hand. What this article is describing is an attempt to measure whether that spherical region is perfectly spherical. If it weren't - meaning, if the electron was slightly more likely to be found on one side of the sphere than the other, then it would have an electrical dipole moment, which is what they were trying to find.

ineptech··on What Kind of Mind Does ChatGPT Have?
I don't have a rigorous definition, but I don't think we need one at this point, do we? Chatgpt is a search engine with a natural language interface, you can draw a straight line from its inputs to its outputs. I'm not making a scientific claim here, just a subjective observation, but it seems self-evidently too simple to be hiding a self or awareness of some kind, there just isn't enough complexity there.
ineptech··on What Kind of Mind Does ChatGPT Have?
What makes it obviously not conscious is that it isn't a process. It can't do anything unless you ask it a question. I can certainly imagine a conscious or nearly-conscious AI someday, one that likely uses an LLM to handle language processing in much the same way that a cpu might use a coprocessor to do floating point operations. But just as you wouldn't say a computer is intelligent because it can do math, I think chatpgt has proven that the same can be said of processing natural language.
ineptech··on What Kind of Mind Does ChatGPT Have?
To me, LLMs are living (heh) proof of the validity of Searle's Chinese Room argument about weak AI. At the time, I think a lot of the people who disputed that had the position, basically, that any program that could pass a Turing test would be so advanced in other ways that we would not be able to confidently declare it to be not conscious. The assumption was that carrying on a conversation is so difficult that only something intelligent or nearly so could accomplish it.

It turns out, we can create a program that can do exactly what Searle described, and hooboy is it obviously not conscious, nowhere close. The obvious conclusion to draw is not that LLMs are intelligent, but that natural language processing isn't as difficult as we thought.

ineptech··on Joe Rogan Issues Warning After AI-Generated Version of His Podcast Surfaces
You may also enjoy the AI conversation between Werner Herzog and Slavoj Žižek. https://infiniteconversation.com/

(not generated in realtime I believe, due to being created in the ancient days of a year ago)

ineptech··on AI clones teen girl’s voice in $1M kidnapping scam: ‘I’ve got your daughter’
Man, do we need a way to prove you are who you say you are that doesn't involve a giant corporation. I feel like there was a window where we could've organically coalesced around something open source, like Keybase, or a government oauth run by 18F, or MIT's PGP keyring or something, but the moment has passed and the only identity service you're going to realistically get a majority of people to adopt is for-profit social media bullshit, which is incentivized to stay fragmented and not really address problems like this.
ineptech··on The Life Engine
Man, you weren't kidding, thanks for posting this.
ineptech··on AI is coming for voice actors?
...the same could be said of call center and phone support jobs, which will affect about a zillion times more people than professional voice actors.
ineptech··on CDC team studying East Palestine train derailment fell ill during investigation
> https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Cohencidence: A play on 'coincidence' and the common Ashkenazi Jewish surname Cohen. Used to imply that Jews are behind certain events or movements that are purported to be random or organic. Similar to ((())).
ineptech··on Pause Giant AI Experiments: An Open Letter
> ... nonhuman minds that might eventually outnumber, outsmart, obsolete and replace us... loss of control of our civilization...

I don't think these concerns are very likely, but I find them considerably easier to imagine than a VC-funded company voluntarily surrendering market advantage.

ineptech··on ChatGPT and Code Interpreter = Magic
> what happens if there's an error in your app? How do you identify sensitive data that needs to be handled differently to "basic" data?

Nothing happens, and you don't. That's what I meant by "bad software". I'm reminded of a story Clay Shirky told about AT&T analysts from the mid-90s trying to understand the web hosting business[0]:

> The ATT guys had correctly understood that the income from $20-a-month customers wouldn’t pay for good web hosting. What they hadn’t understood, were in fact professionally incapable of understanding, was that the industry solution, circa 1996, was to offer hosting that wasn’t very good. This, for the ATT guys, wasn’t depressing so much as confusing... For a century, ATT’s culture had prized - insisted on - quality of service; they ran their own power grid to keep the dial-tone humming during blackouts. ATT, like most organizations, could not be good at the thing it was good at and good at the opposite thing at the same time. The web hosting business, because it followed the “Simplicity first, quality later” model, didn’t just present a new market, it required new cultural imperatives.

0: https://gwern.net/doc/economics/2010-04-01-shirky-thecollaps... (shirky's old site has been down for some time)

ineptech··on ChatGPT and Code Interpreter = Magic
Writing requirements is not usually done by staff+ engineers, is it? An awful lot of working software, the majority I'd guess, is built from requirements written by a non-technical PM who wasn't even in the software industry three years ago. I wonder if you're too good a programmer to have your thumb on the pulse on the kind of software bad programmers make? Because that's where the real disruption will come from. The question is not "will some bad programmers lose their jobs", it's "what will happen when the kind of simple software that used to be made by bad programmers becomes effectively free."
ineptech··on ChatGPT and Code Interpreter = Magic
I agree, people thinking about using LLMs to make apps that they can then sell are missing the forest for the trees.

The more interesting question is, once non-technical people are able to auto-generate their own apps, what backend will they use and how will they handle auth? The easiest default option today is "cloud services, and 'log in with facebook' oauth" but we can hope for better...

ineptech··on ChatGPT and Code Interpreter = Magic
I don't think your intuition is ambitious enough. We have 12 year olds making roguelikes and platformers today, with templates and toolkits. Sure the initial LLM-made apps will suck, the initial everything sucks, but a couple years of progress on something this new will be considerable. We've barely started tuning LLMs for specific use cases!

> The hard part of defining requirements is being specific in them

True but I don't think you're accounting for iteration. You know the "idea guy" cliche? Today, if/when this "idea guy" hires a team of devs from India to make his million-dollar idea into reality, his inability to write good requirements will lead to a useless app, and the idea guy asking for changes (that are also poorly described) until he runs out of money, right?

Now imagine that his "dev team" works for free and can turn around each new set of requirements in minutes rather than months. How long will it take him to learn how to good acceptance criteria? A day? A week? It's hard but not that hard. And a million or two other "idea guys" are doing the same thing, and sharing notes with each other.

ineptech··on ChatGPT and Code Interpreter = Magic
It seems like we're pretty close to the point where LLMs will be able to create simple client apps. When anyone can make, say, an android note-taking app to their own specifications for free, it's not hard to imagine the impact on the paid note-taking apps in the store today. "Make me a game like Clash of Clans, but free, and with..." is probably only a few years further out.

One interesting question is: when people are using LLMs to generate software for their own use, what will they do for the server component of client-server use cases? Is "LLM, go register me an EC2 instance and configure it not to go over $20/mo, here's my credit card number" totally out of the question?

ineptech··on Ask HN: How are you using GPT to be productive?
> If i worked at openAI and had full access to everyones chats, I would get bored within five minutes and not even want to read anymore.

No one is going to actually read them, but try "ChatGPT-5, please compile a list of the ChatGPT-4 users most likely to [commit terrorism/subscribe to Hulu/etc]"

ineptech··on Facebook is going after LLaMA repos with DMCA's
Copyright-wise, why would the weights be any different from a video file? At the end of the day, LLaMa's weights and fast_and_furious_11.mp4 are both just strings of binary data that some company made to sell.
ineptech··on Meditations on Moloch (2014)
His whole schtick is that he engages with ideas, even terrible ones, on their own turf rather than just dismissing them. He was never "for" neoreaction, he started out against it and wrote lengthy essays from that perspective (it's kind of disingenuous to mention the anti-neoreactionary faq without the "anti" part, by the way), and concluded to his own satisfaction that a lot of it was wrong or dumb.

The problem is, he seems to believe that if he can't show something to be false then it must be true. That's what those emails are saying, I think: he didn't go in believing the race/iq stuff, but once he researched it and failed to prove it wrong, he had no choice but to accept it. He's too smart/stubborn to consider the obvious third possibility, that he can fail to disprove something despite it being wrong.

ineptech··on Bandcamp Unionizes
Can anyone involved describe, perhaps more frankly than the linked site, what drove this? I think of unions as typically being a response to some kind of abusive behavior from management, and am wondering what it is in this case. Most of the specifics described seem like stuff that is common in tech companies already (eg good pay and benefits) or stuff that sounds hard to enforce (eg input into company direction).
ineptech··on Ask HN: How do you think LLMs will affect society medium/long term?
Voice chatbots will replace phone trees in ~2 years, and most call-center workers within 5. Within a decade it will be almost literally impossible to look up a phone number associated with a business, call it, and speak to a human.
ineptech··on What Korzybski got wrong about the map and the territory
I don't think the author quite groks the map/territory distinction that Korzybski goes on and on about.

> A map shows you everything at once. The order of events matters on a journey. Knowing your way around a place isn't remotely like map-knowledge. Korzybski almost gets this point. Whatever is happening as we represent the flow of sensation in words has a weak and fragile grip on things outside of the mind. Words can only express a tiny slice of what we experience of the world.

In other words, he's complaining that a "map" (as in, paper with a drawing of some terrain on it) is a poor and limited stand-in for a "map" (as in mental model of some phenomenon). But that's exactly what Korzybski was saying! All maps are poor and limited, by virtue of being maps, even the one implied by "The map is not the territory" which uses physical terrain maps as a model for models generally.

To be fair, Korzybski was prolific and most of his writing is pretty opaque and I don't understand 90% of his output (and I consider myself a huge fan!) so I may be misunderstanding OP's point, or misrepresenting Korzybski's. I'm just adding my two cents' worth because I was very heavily influenced by General Semantics (the parts I can understand) and am always excited to see it discussed.

ineptech··on Medicare Advantage plans use algorithms to cut off care
It might be helpful to read this recent HN submission and its comments:

> Stop the Medicare “Advantage” Scam Before Medicare Is Dead https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35001728

ineptech··on Joint statement by the Department of the Treasury, Federal Reserve, and FDIC
I don't think oversight comes from shareholders or the CEO, it comes from the customers, right? The desired outcome here is for the companies that banked with SVB to demand more caution from their next bank, meaning they'll pay higher fees; they have no incentive to do that if they don't lose any money in this mess.
ineptech··on Privatizing our digital identities
Nothing about what I'm proposing would make you easier to track.
ineptech··on Privatizing our digital identities
First, I don't think you're being realistic about how tracking works nowadays. Google will will link your new "anonymous" account to your established tracking profile as soon as you access it from a device or geographical location associated with your existing account. This is true even if you never visit any Google owned domain, through the magic of shared tracking IDs.

Second, your position rests on the assumption that this hypothetical federal ID will be mandatory. How will it be "required"? By whom? If the government makes a federal oauth, and it works well, sure, some webapps might require it, but they can also just require your identity today. I think you haven't wrapped your mind around the idea that any big tech company that doesn't already have your identity doesn't want it. Google doesn't care about your SSN, they care about your browsing and shopping history, but the day they decide they want it, they'll demand it, and you'll comply or go without Google services (and they'll probably get it from data sharing partner anyway). None of that would change due to what I'm proposing.

ineptech··on Privatizing our digital identities
> ...That must never be allowed to happen.

I empathize with these concerns but think they're outdated by a decade or two. We already have universal tracking IDs, we just don't see them because they're opaque and proprietary. We already use government identification online, we just do it in the dumbest way possible: "please upload a photo of your driver's license." We've got the worst parts of centralized identity and none of the benefits.

> They don't have some special magic that allows you to prove who you are in a unique way.

Yes they do, the magic is called "losing money." FaceGoogAzonRosoft have done everything related to auth that's profitable, but the one thing they will never do is build an office in your hometown and staff it with a person who can do deal with you as an individual and physically hold your two recent utility bills when corner cases or fraud or whatever require it. The government has already built that office and hired that person, and you've already paid for it, so you might as well get some value out of it.

ineptech··on Privatizing our digital identities
The hard part isn't storing it, the hard part is updating it. What do you do when the automated process fails due to a corner case, like your angry ex using your phone to reset your credentials? The government solution might be annoying or time consuming, but the private sector answer is "Go fuck yourself."
ineptech··on Privatizing our digital identities
Nobody really wants government-run auth, but we need it nonetheless. For extreme cases like having your identity stolen, the solution of last resort is "go to a place and talk to a human." No tech company will pay all those salaries to run a free service, so realistically that place is going to the be the DMV or similar.
ineptech··on Malvertising on Google Ads
There's probably some middle ground between "bank-scale KYC" and "people don't steal credit card numbers, do they?". You really think their current process can't be improved on? With all of their billions, their PhDs, their regulatory capture, finding a way to let in most of the real advertisers while keeping out the scammers isn't just too expensive, it's literally impossible? Despite the fact that they have a near monopoly and the legitimate advertisers will jump through almost any hoop imaginable?
ineptech··on Malvertising on Google Ads
According to whom? The organization that can't distinguish bad actors from good? I mean, you may be right, but he point is, they could do it, they just choose not to because it would be unprofitable.
← PreviousPage 8 of 29Next →