This shows that ESG needs updating. Investing in arms manufacturers is no longer just code for "support the bombing of brown people to enrich the MIC", it can also mean "ensure sovereignty and defend democracies against a hostile, desperate dictator" - treating the two as equivalent, and both as immoral, is outdated.
This comes only a few days after a data breach was reported at the Technical University of Denmark [1], exposing the personal records of current and past students, faculty and staff. That included their CPR numbers (government id at the central person registry), that could for example be used to look up their official place of residence. All in all, it seems likely that someone just got the table they needed to join on the first breach.
> Even when a goal is simple and well-defined, sometimes it’s going to look much less achievable to experts than it actually is
I think it’s a compelling idea, that even if AI never achieves superintelligence, there might still be enormous value in their ability to relentlessly pursue a solution for much “longer” (relatively speaking) than a human. Even if they never let us pick the highest hanging fruit, if they instead let us pick every single low hanging fruit, that’s still a massive win.
This site proves to me that the better you are at the things that matter most in your niche, the more you can get away with not even trying in other areas.
They’re telling you the year where the new OS will be stable enough that it’s a good idea to upgrade (joke’s on them, I still haven’t “upgraded” to Tahoe…)
To be honest, I think we're incredibly lucky to be advancing AI this far already, while the world still has so many non-digitized systems and manual processes. I imagine that in e.g. 50 years, the world will be so connected that it can basically be "conquered" from the internet. I'd much rather have AI burst onto the scene we have today.
I haven't used Kimi K3 or GLM 5.3, but boy am I glad they exist! Every time an open weights model is released a bit closer to the frontier models, that's another level of performance that we, the users, can't lose access to no matter if the frontier labs jack up prices out of our reach, or the US administration decides to put a full export block in place on AI.
The madman and the genius are similar in that they disagree with the world at large/prevailing wisdom. Where they differ is that the madman loses the fight while the genius (eventually) wins.
It's my impression that it's common in western culture, where text is read left to right, and timelines are visualized as going from left to right, to also animate things going from left to right, since westerners thus have an instinct that "right = forward", so it "feels right" (familiar). I wonder to which degree this is reflected in the training data? And if you'd be more likely to get left-facing pelicans if you prompted it in Hebrew, Arabic or another right-to-left language?
Stripe has a lot of money, but not a lot of AI-buzzword compliance. OpenRouter is highly AI-buzzword compliant, but doesn't have a lot of money. It's a match made in heaven
I'm wondering if some of Opus' chain of thought patterns have bled into its "human readable text output" circuitry. E.g. some of them that I stumbled on, "the bug is in the lock, not the query" reads like some of the shorthands it might use in its own chain of thought.
Throwing unread AI output at others is the new version of “sitting on your phone, oblivious to those spending time with you”. Every new consumer technology comes with a new way of being rude.
We desperately need to break Visa's stranglehold on access to the consumer side of commerce. As long as everyone's only innovating and competing on the merchant side of things, we're not really going to get anywhere.
My 2008 MBP had a motherboard failure due to bad factory solder, but you could sometimes fix it by taking the motherboard out and putting it in the oven for just the right amount of time to reflow it. I still remember how scary it was putting the logic board in the oven - but it wasn't really bravery, when the alternative was a non-functional laptop anyway. I did eventually give up on it after it had relapsed two or three times.
Friend of mine built a startup around this, allowing non-techies to "query their database using natural language": https://www.blazesql.com/ Not sure how he achieved it (if TFA is to be believed), but it's my impression that his query generation and results are fairly robust.
I experienced this too, when I started reading out loud more. At first, it was just that my eyes would scan ahead a bit from what I was saying, to help me get the right emphasis by knowing where the sentence was going. It felt like I had "handed off" saying the words out loud to a "subroutine", so my attention could be on what I was reading. Then that "readahead" extended to a whole sentence. And at that point it was like I was so far ahead of what I was saying that I had time to think about it a bit. And then at some point it was like the "reading the words" part got handed off to a "subroutine" too, so my attention could mostly stay on whatever I was thinking
Siri is how I set timers, alarms and reminders on my iPhone. Every once in a while, I'll try to use it to play something on Spotify via my Sonos, then give up and do it manually in the app instead.
Reminds me of this old joke: No ethically trained software engineer would ever write a destroyBaghdad function - they’d write a destroyCity function to which you could pass Baghdad as a parameter.
The intuition I've built is that you can't talk about a false positive rate being high or low on its own - it's always relative to the actual occurrence rate of positives in the tested population. E.g. if there's a 1 in 10000 risk of a false positive, but real positives also are only 1 out of 10000 tested cases, then a positive case will have a 50/50 chance of being a false positive (because for every 10000 tests, you'll have on average one false positive and one real positive). So a false positive rate can only be said to be low if it's significantly lower than the real occurrence rate of positives.