largbae

We don't need to destroy them to stop them. Just use them to surveil your local legislators and report on a few of their wrongdoings. The 4th Amendment is so abstract when it isn't _your_ privacy being invaded. Bring the message home.

Every moment (token?) spent interrupting a user to introduce a feature should instead be spent making the feature more intuitive instead.

The article offers practical advice to go along with this framing, like configuring AI services to write/speak in a more robotic tone. I think that's a decent path to try.

Sure, but my anecdotal experience is that doctors do this regularly in real life, especially when choosing to diagnose or ignore problems that are unlikely to kill an aging patient before some other larger issue does.

But liability and ethics cannot be put aside. If treatments were free of cost and perfectly address problems, then a correct diagnosis would always lead to the optimal patient outcome. In that scenario, AI diagnosis will be like code generation and go asymptotic to perfection as models improve.

But a doctor's job in the real world today is to navigate a total mess of uncertainty: about the expected outcome of treatments given a patient's age and other peoblems. About the psychological effect of knowing about a problem that they cannot effectively treat. Even about what the signals in the chart and x-ray mean with any certainty.

We are very far from having unit test suites for medical problems.

Actually security clearances do include an NDA. When I signed mine it contained an amusing clause, something to the effect of you will not share classified information until 70 years have passed or you die, whichever is _later_.

It seems obvious that a humanoid robot system or other truly general-purpose AI will need a stack of model types that work in concert. An LLM could be analogous to the conscious part of our brains, while many smaller and possibly frequently updateable models might provide "muscle memory" and reflexes.

If that becomes the case, then similarly built humanoid robots might have differentiated capabilities depending on their experience, just like us.

This reads similar to the Trump 4D chess excuse. It seems unlikely that this is a ruse, and much more likely that OpenAI's market cap is supported by doing "all the things" to exploit the huge monthly average user base that OpenAI has accumulated.

The migration sharing is admirable and useful teaching, thank you!

I see the DigitalOcean vs Hetzner comparison as a tradeoff that we make in different domains all day long, similar to opening your DoorDash or UberEats instead of making your own dinner(and the cost ratio is similar too).

I work in all 3 major clouds, on-prem, the works. I still head to the DigitalOcean console for bits and pieces type work or proof of concept testing. Sometimes you just want to click a button and the server or bucket or whatever is ready and here's the access info and it has sane defaults and if I need backups or whatnot it's just a checkbox. Your time is worth money too.

Do unto others as you would have done to you.

Or its simpler corollary: Don't do to others what you would _not_ want done to you.

Everything else derives from this.

They look kind of translucent to me, maybe the first of this kind of slug just had a digestive problem that didn't break down the chloroplasts, and the minimal energy through their bodies made those individuals more successful because they didn't need to eat as often as those who digested theirs. Yada yada other errors among the indegestible-chloroplast population showed further advantages when it's closer to the skin, they outcompeted their peers, etc.

Well we can easily see that the "abundance" people are wrong(for example everyone can't have a penthouse apartment overlooking Central Park, no matter how capable the robots become).

An alternative possibility that inequality is about to explode between those who profit from AI/robotic labor and those displaced by it.

I think they mean serving inference workloads

Don't worry, if someone truly achieves superintelligence it won't be controlled by anyone for long.

Seems like the lawyers will profit from their platforms _by_ claiming they are harmful.

I haven't noticed any problems with large context requests through OR to e.g. Opus (other than the rate at which my budget gets spent!). Is this a performance thing?

For my curiosity what would the fair use be?

I love this concept but the introduction is very odd. It feels like the first, third and 4th paragraphs make the same point (1/4 of cement is imported). It gets better as it gets technical.

You probably watched from the Florida side of the intercoastal waterway between the main part of Florida and Cape Canaveral. Because of the 3-mile minimum and Patrick AFB it is pretty hard to find a good watching place that is actually on the cape.

I feel like we've got tunnel vision. Things you can do on a computer are a tiny subset of what a human can do.

If the AI has to control a body to sit on a couch and play this game on a laptop that would be a step in the right direction.

This one is EU I think, but yes UK and everyone else needs to actually protect their citizens' rights.

What percentage of non-Claude-linked output hours to repos with <2 stars?

Aren't most advertisements served by Linux servers these days? Free software isn't a monastery, as utopian as that ideal sounds.

This is the wrong way to think about tool use.

You wanted this feature for years. You understood the problem, but the amount of time that it would have taken to properly implement and test it held you back from doing it. Obviously, anyone else who wanted this feature came to the same conclusion.

This new tool reduced the amount of time that it would take. So you used the tool. You used the tool to bring the feature into existence, checked the tests, and took enough time to ensure that it was good. You didn't lie about your contribution in the PR, and the maintainer deemed it acceptable. And now everyone has this feature!

When you eat a strawberry do you feel like an impostor for not growing it yourself?

This is a repeating phenomenon, and probably worse on land. Fitness and run tracking apps also reveal troop locations and concentrations on land (location clusters reported by apps targeted at non-local-language audiences stick out like a sore thumb).

May I use ADB or Developer mode to disable the one-day period?

I wasn't gonna run from the cops...

They're writing the software to end all softwares!

Sure, but I didn't think about this specific topic in any direction until this article. That's the great thing about articles and media, they spread thoughts and connections that might not be obvious to folks who are focused on other things.

I love this new information about birth rates and WFH, and totally support following it to higher birth rates.

But the article framing as if the pronatalists somehow knew of the birth rate benefit and maliciously used it to counter their stated goals is too heavy-handed.

How about framing this as the new information that it is and getting the information out there in a positive way so that it can be used in both government and corporate policy?