nvy

The social/personal risk in dating is way skewed towards women. That policy makes sense if you consider what the real world is like.

They have an incentive to keep their algorithms from getting too good, though.

It's in the platform's best financial interest if MAU stays high.

Matching people so well that they find their soul mates isn't conducive to recurring users.

>They're pretty good at generating summaries of text, simple machine translation, generating alternative prose

They're not, though. For these tasks they are mediocre at best.

The "free market" mostly isn't.

LLMs are actively harmful to society and in a way that individuals cannot combat, and spam/fraud is merely the obvious way.

What about it doesn't make sense to you?

LLMs aren't intelligent and the hallucinations problem is fundamental to the technology, and cannot be solved.

Therefore definitionally an LLM will never be fully trustworthy.

But it's great at generating plausible-sounding stuff, which makes it great for propaganda and disinformation.

This current iteration of "AI", by which I mean LLMs, seems only good at enabling generative spam and disinformation.

I think regulations are exactly what's required.

Okay so we've established there must be a central registry, since it's a certainty that somebody's 65 year old mom will lose her phone and her certs and keys with it.

How does your system protect against attackers claiming to be my mom?

Okay so what happens when I lose my keys and need new ones issued?

I have to go through the manual verification process and then issue revocation certs for my old keys?

How do I know what those keys were without a database of which key belongs to whom?

>Whenever this comes up, the focus is on simply opposing the idea.

Well, because the idea is fundamentally unsound. Nobody can keep such a database secure, and certainly not the Canadian government, champions of ineptitude that they are.

>Certify

Goodness, that's dystopian.

The faux-politeness is one of the reasons HN has a reputation for being arrogant and aloof.

I think Sam is a bad person who deserves to be insulted. I prefer to call a spade a spade.

This was old news on bsky months ago

I stand corrected.

I still despise the HN policy of "no criticism of tech CEOs" whether official or otherwise.

Try to say something bad about Steve Jobs? Nah that's not "curious conversation".

Whatever.

You mean the environment? Absolutely.

We can't have discussion of that on HN, though, so the moderator has flagged it.

Sam Altman is the poster child of the silicon valley techbro (derogatory).

He and his orbiters have done real an irreparable harm to the Internet while profiting enormously from unlicensed copyrighted works (aka piracy).

"Open" "AI" is pure hypocrisy, an embodiment of the two parallel sets of rules: one for the commons and one for the elite.

Sama deserves more than a little pushback on and scrutiny of his claims.

Sorry man, your wife isn't a replacement for a doctor. If she was, she'd have gone to medical school.

Don't do it. I'm married to a doctor who started in family medicine and bailed out because the work-life balance was awful and the money was mediocre, but she wasn't willing to see 6 patients an hour.

>I feel like doctor incentivization and silicon valley's predatory corporate culture aside, this problem does need to be solved if we want to avoid wasting doctors' precious work-hours

Your comment presupposes that time spent on data entry is a waste. Relevant, cogent notes written by a human are infinitely better than whatever the rent-seeking intermediary between the physician and OpenAI shits out. The problem is not technical in nature; it's a misalignment of incentives.

The solution is to pay physicians for time they spend charting, and then the time is no longer "wasted".

Here in BC it's just a lack of political will because physicians are expensive, governments are broke after COVID, and so instead of fixing the system (which would cost money), the absolute morons in the health ministry have decided that "nurse practitioners" are 1:1 substitutes for family doctors, despite the fact that they don't go to medical school and thus don't receive any diagnostic training whatsoever.

It'll right itself eventually, but I'm not sure what the actuarial tables say about whether I'll be around to see it or not.

The root cause of this is that the billing system (which varies by Province) by which doctors actually get paid is a fee-for-service model. That means the system incentivizes doctors to see patients by only allowing them to get paid for actually seeing the patient: Give someone a vaccine? $15. Family doctor routine checkup? $34.

The system is set up to reward the kind of doctor who sees 6 patients an hour and is on their third marriage because they're at the clinic for 12 hours a day. Those are the family docs who are making high six figures, which is incidentally the opposite of what's good for the patient. You can't have meaningful interactions with a family doctor in ten minute visits, but the billing codes (in BC and Ontario at least) are set up to financially penalize doctors who take 45 minutes with a single patient to really make sure they get to the bottom of things.

Anyway, the follow-on effect is that doctors generally don't get paid to do their legally-required paperwork and a litany of other things, so we've arrived at the present where family doctors are using "AI" shitware of questionable quality made by silicon valley techbros of questionable quality, and relying on that software to ensure the accuracy (and privacy!) of patients' health data because they are so overworked and underpaid that there's a constant brain drain of good family doctors leaving family medicine for specialized sub-disciplines or leaving Canada to seek greener (pun only partially intended) pastures where the pay is better south of 49.

tl;dr the whole situation's fucked and the fact they're resorting to "AI" garbage should be a source of profound shame, not jubilation

Isn't it the ambiguity of the Diamond Problem? Suppose B and C are both children of A, and D is a child of both B and C.

If B and C both have methods foo(), which gets called when you do d.foo()?

Seems like a real footgun requiring extra effort to avoid.

>Microsoft's security reputation is so flawed, that some parts simply must be intentional, or coerced.

They are a lot better than they used to be. They went through a trial by fire in the 90s and early 00s and came through for the better.

It's worth noting that classified computer systems in the military-industrial complex run Windows, and not Linux, nor do they run the security cosplay that is OpenBSD.

>In Germany, the worker protections make operating really quite difficult and it changes the culture of the company, too. Don’t even get me started about on-call culture.

Given how exploitative some US companies are, this sounds wonderful to be honest. The only way I can see this as a negative is if you view your employees as fungible commodities rather than valued team members.

I believe that the semantics of < > vs "" is actually compiler-dependent but on every compiler that matters, #including with angle brackets is the semantic for "the system header" whereas using quotes gives preference to files in your local source tree.

So for example if you #include <foo> then the compiler (actually the preprocessor, but whatever) looks in the system's standard location, whereas if you #include "foo" then it looks in the local tree.

Could of, would of, should of.

>Whereas for Meta, the Quest hardware has always been sold at breakeven or even as a loss leader (a few years ago they actually raised the price of the Quest 2 to cut further losses).

Indeed, and that means they'll seek a return on their investment from continued invasive surveillance, emotional manipulation, and cramming ads everywhere.

What I'm doing is asking a question, as denoted by the "?" glyph at the end of my comment.

Isn't it difficult to exist in modern society without one?

I guess I just don't see the value of having a "jack of all trades/master of none" text editor.

I'd rather use specialized tools for each task, maybe gluing them together with python or bash if needed.

So just to be clear: you think "it is very likely" or "he might" are absolutist statements?

Is that what you're saying?

It's missing my personal site at least. I'm sure there are many others.