mxkopy

The unspoken social contract of “if you don’t like it that’s on you” that companies have an incentive to maintain in their customer service experiences

There’s nothing inherently wrong with “idealogical homogeneity”. Antisocial beliefs are not owed any representation. And frankly I’d much prefer my politicians to associate on the basis of ideology rather than class or familial connection.

“The state makes war and war makes the state”

Honestly it doesn’t matter what they get them on, half of the PMC in America needs to be indicted on RICO charges for white collar crimes against humanity

I think it’s sarcasm. In other counties such corruption would trigger revolution, and the political system would grind to a halt

As someone currently struggling in a somewhat similar situation to that book, what gets me through the day is unbridled hate towards the system and an overriding desire to see justice

My guess is that the first version will write kernel modules for a distro with live kernel patching. If you’re token-constrained/doing local inference you’ll want to be really specific in your UX ahead of time; basically plan out all the UI flows and components in one go. If you’re less constrained or your requested changes are small then you can just directly prompt for a new kernel module.

If anyone wants to steal that as a prompt feel free lmao. This sort of thing is definitely the future and I can imagine distilling some models expressly for this purpose; i.e. models that translate natural language descriptions of UI components directly into C

This is an entitled take. The usefulness of a thing has nothing to do with how easily communicable it is. That is the whole premise of specialization and becoming an expert. People go in-depth on things so they can say “trust me on this” and so you don’t have to. You are advocating for a tyranny of the illiterate.

Also, this reads like you didn’t like math classes. That sucks, but it’s no basis for societal organization

What about p2p and less scrupulous actors like TPB? I guess in China the former is probably more effective but this sort of thing is immediately what I thought of when I read OP

Even his writing is derivative of the Slandered Luddites

It’s absolutely insane to me how intro economics classes spout that capital takes on risks to implement new ideas while completely glossing over the political process of ensuring profit floors and guarantees under the “rent seeking” definition. Like, rent seeking seems to be the only goal of capital now.

Egregious example:

https://www.loevy.com/for-profit-prison/

The technology is fine, great even. It’s the rabid greed of venture capital and sociopathic CEOs that try to integrate themselves into every aspect of our lives for profit, that’s the problem.

“For 19.99 a month you too can be a world class mathematician!” Meanwhile they are extinct.

This is a whole lot of talking for someone that doesn’t have much on their mind.

Comparing US safety nets to those of “any other country on Earth” is just patently absurd and disingenuous. EU has mandated - mandated - 4 week paid leave. In the US you are obligated to exactly 0 days of paid leave.

I get that this is HN and most people here haven’t worked the bottom-of-the-barrel retail jobs that this applies to, but there is very little difference in take home pay for this income regime after accounting for necessary expenses such as housing, transportation, and food; in some cases EU take home is even higher. https://boundlesshq.com/blog/us-vs-europe-employment-costs-s...

Like, sure, if you want to larp as a low income oligarch the US is the best place to do that. Otherwise, you’re going to be regularly crying after 10 hour shifts because you’re in the red each month after necessary expenses. Most people would like tech talent fall into the latter category out of schadenfreude or profit motive.

Tech needs to unionize.

“Everyone wants the village, nobody wants to be the villager.” Maybe look into changing what you want.

People voted for Trump because they are racist and bigoted on such an abstract and distanced level that it doesn’t seem that way, even to themselves. Lee Atwater, who himself pioneered the strategy, framed it best:

“You start out in 1954 by saying, 'Nr, nr, nr.' By 1968 you can't say 'nr'—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states' rights, and all that stuff, and you're getting so abstract. Now, you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is—blacks get hurt worse than whites…”

The system has evolved to the point where if people do not verify their political assumptions in relation to a history of racism, they are voting out of ignorance and bigotry that is essentially synonymous to racism. And this isn’t for a lack of trying on everyone else’s part - you can’t say it’s anyone else’s fault but your own when you were warned multiple times, alarms bells ringing like fucking crazy - that this is the history, these are the dog whistles, this is what you’re signing up for.

I get there was, and still is, a status quo that needs upending. But when you look at people’s actual policy beliefs, they align broadly with the aims of the current DSA movement, and yet they vote in droves for the diametric opposite in the form of the GOP. And even in the modern age, it turns out “ban transgender” and “protect free speech” is not valid economic policy. There’s no explanation for it, other than suicidal stupidity and stubbornness manufactured by years of systemic racism.

This is the mindset of an abuser. “I don’t like how you’re acting so I’m going to pursue unrelated avenues to disenfranchise you.” People who voted for Trump put him into office. Nobody else.

The only real bottleneck for self-organized discord work groups becoming more mainstream is the need for a central point of contact for legal things, money things, and inter/intra communication things. I see 0 reason why there couldn’t be a system for distributing all of this work at some point.

If you want to add a feature compliant with X Y Z, you need forms A B C and to implement I J K. Put it on the board for whoever’s interested and when it’s finished, add it to the set of things you’re compliant with. If there’s disagreement about how it should be implemented, elect a tiebreaker. Have automatic actions and alerts based on what you’re compliant with and what you intend to do. etc

All this needs to work is the ability to reliably look stuff up by how you want to change the organization, and pattern match on previous approaches and your evolving situations. If you aren’t inventing anything new this is exactly what LLMs are for.

Julia is basically this, i.e. compiled typed python. The nesting for type declarations gets gnarly though, which answers your general question - the really nice language ergonomics cost compute at runtime because that’s the only way you avoid laying everything out beforehand.

I mean just from the above quote it’s clear he doesn’t trust them for “mission-critical” tasks. And I doubt LLms have evolved significantly from their stochastic parrot nature over the last few years

Accessibility, saving time, personal preference. Any number of reasonable things that don’t put undue stress on the host

You’re conflating being ghosted with ghost jobs, which are positions that are posted but are never intended to be filled (usually cited as for data collection purposes). These waste people’s precious time while they apply for jobs.

I love how the basic expectation of having a job and the life altering circumstance of not having one factors into this not even a little bit

This is what bugs me about the whole AI fanaticism thing coming from the top down, because what evidence is there that the AI labs aren’t going to try and eat everyone’s lunch after they’ve done whatever they need to developing the actual AI. We’ve already seen this with Gemini and OpenAI trying to eat video production and making workflows explicitly for that purpose, what makes people think that Claude isn’t going to do the same exact thing once they get bored of making models? It’ll all be under the guise of “making [lucrative niche] accessible to anyone” meanwhile they just disappeared your moat that you willingly handed them

Jesus the terminology is so fucked… compare the contents of this blog post with any RL paper containing the words “long term planning”…

It all makes sense when you realize QAnon basically runs the white house now. There’s a very insulated type of American who lives in their own world, that unfortunately lots of voters are apparently sympathetic to. It’s probably seen as a victory against the climate change hoax or something along those lines.

It’s a band aid solution because the model can get stuck in a refutation loop, where it argues a point by pulling up a contradicting source ad infinitum. The holy grail, which has not been yet reached, is figuring out how to dynamically align the model to be consistent with all the sources in the first place (and this is a problem of provenance rather than model design)

All of these advanced death machines need equally advanced supply lines and staging grounds, both of which would run through civilian populations. Look at Afghanistan as an example: with all the might of its war machine the US couldn’t kick the Taliban out, who we love to tout as fighting with sticks and stones.

In fact the only issue stopping a worker’s revolution in the US is the lack of organization. The technology factor is really small in comparison to the inherent asymmetry of the situation.

The attitudes aren’t 1-1 comparable. China is on a winning streak in terms of socioeconomic development, and AI is likely seen as merely a new technology in the context of the social contract. The US is going the opposite way, and people here view AI through the lens of oligarchy more often than not. I wouldn’t say that a lot of people feel as optimistic, even if they are actually more economically secure.

The false equivalence of emotional maturity with being able to chase production is really telling.

When people think of autonomous driving as a solved problem it evokes something very specific. It means vehicles can drive on their own, without guidance. Until you solve AVs you don’t have a claim to present whatever you actually have as such. There’s no “good enough” for AVs, you’ve either solved them or you haven’t.