probably_wrong

We do have a transportation worker's bill of rights. The vehicles may not tire but the drivers do, and therefore all truck drivers are entitled to mandatory rests. And self-driving cars (current ones, at least) have a similar issue: because the driver must be prepared to take the wheel at all times there's a whole bunch of "increased output" that they're not allowed to take advantage of, with a risk of serious jail time if they do.

IMO the key is risk: right now no one is taking responsibility of the AI errors (IMO by design), but the second we codify who's legally responsible for them we'll see calls for slowing down coming from those groups.

I don't think the problem is whether these limits apply to normal tools or not, the same way it doesn't really matter that speed limits technically apply to horses too [1].

I imagine a solution would be a knowledge worker's bill of rights that declares the amount of output that one can reasonably expect from a human. You could add some measurements like "a knowledge worker cannot be expected to understand and take responsibility for more than X printed pages of work per day", with the expectations that if your employees are overworked then the accountability falls on you.

[1] DUIs too: https://www.loweringthebar.net/2026/04/still-illegal-to-driv...

There's a limit, though. Not only are there mandatory breaks for truck drivers, but also a maximum number of working hours my boss is allowed to demand from me. And even within those limits my boss is not allowed to dispense cocaine during tight deadlines.

We do have limits for how much work a human is allowed to do and, based on the experience of Amazon workers, they are due for some tightening already. I'm not seeing a clear case for AI but I wouldn't discount it entirely either.

I wouldn't go that far. I recognize that I came out in full swing mostly because job search is still a touchy topic (so many ghostings...), but where else are we to discuss our bad ideas if not here? If anything, the OP brought it up here instead of implementing it in their pipeline. ~~BMW~~ Some companies didn't even think that far.

As someone who was job searching in the recent past I can tell you: these type of "alternative" interviews are perceived by job seekers as the circus master making their monkeys dance and, therefore, horribly demoralizing. Asking your candidate to do something completely unrelated to their job just because you think it reveals something about them comes off as flexing your power over someone who's trying to get their basic needs met in a sea of ghostings and AI rejections.

It has nothing to do with applicants discarding games as silly, BTW. Instead, I suggest you re-read your comment replacing online gaming with dancing and see if you'd be excited about such an interview. If your candidate is good enough to have choices they'll go to the one who respects them and their time.

I have an Epson XP-2205. It has clogged up and, unless I figure out how to unclog it, I will soon no longer have an Epson XP-2205. I use it under Linux, where support is underwhelming. The scanner works in one account but not on another (same computer).

On that front things look the same they always did.

Based on the earlier definition of "Fair use" I think it only means that the developer promises not to overload the geodata servers with too many requests and that the publishers reserve a right to rate-limit them if they don't behave.

While not in Germany, my dad got a surprise letter from a government agency to explain why he had built a pool in the backyard without getting the proper government approval (which he hadn't built). After some calls it was explained that the agency routinely uses Google Maps to look for surfaces that fit a pattern, and a new sun protection he installed looked like a pool from above.

While mostly harmless and cleared up in the end, this is the very definition of mass surveillance: a government agency looking into people's backyards without judge approval and without oversight. On that principle I have to agree with the ruling.

I disagree with the idea that it was "actually correct". I suspect there is a cultural miscommunication regarding the word "Catholic" (as another commenter suggests). And because I disagree I would love to engage with their criticism, but I can't because the entire counter-argument was "no".

The original comment may be short but it's also thought-provoking. The reply, on the other hand, is not (per the FAQ) "a good critical comment [that] teaches us something".

I have down voted that comment because HN is not Reddit and that comment is nothing but a cheap shot with no substance. If the commenter had explained why they feel that way then the comment would have been just fine.

I appreciate that the authors didn't go too far into speculation territory, but this being the internet I'll do it anyway.

The survey only explores whether people feel like they became the person they want to be, but it would be great to know many of them actually act in a way consistent with their ideal self. Perhaps it's not that older people feel more comfortable in who they became but rather that, after 50+ years of working at it, they have finally nailed their target and there's not much left to do.

If I understand your question correctly, it's actually the opposite:

> some firms charge a flat retainer fee, while those that specialize in helping companies negotiate a ransom payment tend to charge a percentage of the total ransom amount paid.

Having a good relation with the ransomware group means that the group can ask for more knowing that the negotiation firm won't object too much and that the ransomware firm stands to gain more. Other than the victim, everybody wins.

> It's up to you, as the person running the harness through which the model gains any agency, to restrict the AI from performing malicious actions.

I believe that this line of thinking, while fine in theory, fails when faced with reality. As evidence of developers being overwhelmed by AI code I'd like to offer this post with almost 600 votes and 700+ comments titled "How to deal with shipping AI-written code you don't understand?" [1].

Once you have a malicious model inside your infrastructure generating thousands of lines of code, it doesn't matter how good the sandbox is - if the generated malicious code makes it through code review once, it is game over.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50151036

I have some respect for Meta Research for the good they did releasing Torch, FastText vectors, and the LLaMa models among others for free.

How does this work fits with their mission of destroying the fabric of society and the mental well-being of teenagers, I cannot explain.

On that same line I saw code written by a model try (and fail) to download an extension from a GitHub repo. The download failed because the name of the repo was wrong by one letter.

All one would need is to register gilhub.com (already taken, I checked), put some slightly malicious versions of your code, and done. Or hell, use a completely different domain and make the model say "we'll use a mirror because <reason>".

> The existence of the factory did not wipe out the boutique craftsman.

But... it did? It's not like there are lot of horse carriages out there or, for a more recent example, plenty of Cobol developers. Or for a closer example, there used to be plenty of shoemakers when I was young and yet now I know of exactly one.

> The process still exists as-is in its prior form, like the woodcarvers of yesteryear. Nothing that you desire (the process/journey) has been lost. It still exists.

At the risk of stating the obvious: just because I can be a woodcarver as a hobby it doesn't mean it's the same as making a living out of woodcarving because doing something I consider enjoyable for a living is not the same as doing it exclusively as a hobby. If I fire a Cobol programmer knowing full well they'll have to work at their local supermarket until retirement, telling them "you can still program in your free time" will not bring them comfort.

I have a petty complaint: if you name your social network after a core Unix concept, then why make your users login exclusively through a Microsoft subsidiary?

There's a point that comes up often when discussing locks (what's their point if they can easily be opened and/or cut?), namely, that they help keeping honest people honest.

Yes, duct tape exists, but a determined stalker has much better tools anyway. The point is rather the "amateur" stalker, the one who didn't leave the house planning to stalk someone but suddenly decides to attach their backpack tag to someone's car.

Still worth pointing out that the mere existence of the Air tag enabled a level of stalking that didn't exist before.

There used to be a show in Argentinean TV which weaponized this idea. The strategy was to take something a politician said that week and contrast it with a videoclip (months, years, even decades old) of that politician saying (apparently) the opposite.

It's not obvious at first, but this idea is actually pretty terrible: changing your mind in presence of evidence is something we want politicians to do, but if you then use that to paint them as hypocrites then they'll never ever change any stated position. And "the opposite" casts a wide net: if someone is recorded as saying "I think we should stop building datacenters for AI" and you then contrast them with an old clip saying they use Google Translate, what does that tell us about the character of this person? (IMO nothing, but that's not what the clip wants to tells you)

I'm willing to take the other side of that bet. Quoting this article [1]:

> The idea that new code is better than old is patently absurd. Old code has been used. It has been tested. Lots of bugs have been found, and they’ve been fixed. There’s nothing wrong with it.

LibreOffice has to be feature-per-feature, bug-per-bug compatible with a poorly-documented office suite that's been around for 35 years, so it's no surprise that they don't always get it right. I don't see a new office suite doing any better, unless they decide that compatibility with MS Word is no longer a priority.

[1] https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/04/06/things-you-should-...

I want to push back on "better than getting into the hands of terrorists being a very real issue".

I am currently in Germany. In the 21st Century roughly 60 people have been killed and 160 injured in ~40 terrorist attacks, most of them perpetrated with cars or knives [1]. In comparison, the US' war in Iran has costed Germany 2.781 billion dollars in fuel costs this year alone and the US government has publicly announced its plans to interfere in German politics partially by funding far-right activities [2].

My point being: the probabilities of terrorists shaking the world order with AI are rather low, seeing as even the most successful attacks in this century have been performed with the simplest of technologies. In contrast, the probability of the US flexing its power irresponsibly are rather high, seeing as they have been doing it for a couple years now and are, in fact, doing it right now.

As far as I'm concerned, and from an evidence-based, day-to-day point of view, the "AI in the hands of terrorists" is an irrelevant concern while "the US may abuse its power" is not.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Germany

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jul/15/germany-warn...

> What exactly are you worried about? OpenAI/etc. gaining too much power?

Yes. They have already shown to have no scruples when it comes to making profit and to have little to no morals.

> If you worry about the government, isn't it better that than rando terrorists?

In my country the largest terrorist attack was almost certainly financed by Iran and caused roughly one hundred deaths. This number pales compared to the thousands who died during the latest, US-backed military coup, a move that relied on a doctrine that the US has never stopped asserting [1].

And those morals I mentioned earlier from AI companies? They do not apply to me because I'm not a US citizen. So no, I do not think the US government is the "seal of quality" you think it is.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine

Depends on the quality of your code.

Great post, so I'm here to nitpick it:

> They needn’t be particularly beautiful, either. Better not to stir strong aesthetic or religious feelings with inscriptions and the like.

I remember a discussion on architecture where the point was that, while newer buildings are built with more sustainable techniques, they are also ugly and therefore no one cares if you want to demolish one. Buildings perceived to be pretty, on the other hand, are more likely to stay around longer and therefore have a lower environmental impact in the long run.

Making your M-Disk aesthetically attractive may be a way to ensure that they are around for a longer time, if only because someone may confuse them with electronic waste and take them somewhere away from nature to ensure they are properly destroyed.

For what it's worth, the Prequel Memes subreddit has a similar take [1] on the issue:

> New rule, no algo-speak or self-censoring. This isn't tik tok and the target audience here does not have a median age of 11. You can say murder on the subreddit about the movies where little kids are slaughtered.

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/PrequelMemes/comments/1p2t06d/new_r...

*Exim

Email is ridiculously resilient to downtime. Exam, for example, will retry by default for several days before giving up on delivering a message.

Even if you don't actively monitor your server and only notice there's a problem after three days of not getting any mail, odds are you'll still receive most of them after fixing the issue.

The other commenter didn't answer any of the pertinent questions, namely, on which legal document they based their answer on what a "document" is and isn't. And one of the replies [1] points out to a possibly relevant EU directive against that point.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but saying "FOI is not meant for that" is the type of answer that requires some solid evidence that the other comment didn't provide.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49951807

Throwaway accounts exist, and reporters will also talk to sources under confidentiality.

If you really want the world to know how bad working for OpenAI is (whether is the commenter or the person who wrote the article), there are ways to do that.

I watched the scene and the more I think about it, the more I dislike it.

The quote is great and is a sobering view at how we live our lives. On that part I agree.

But Bob said right before that he won't be able to afford his mortgage nor the medical costs of his daughter's asthma and the movie somehow forgot to address that.

As inspirational as the speech may be, I doubt Bob went home and started applying to chef jobs afterwards. If anything, he's more likely to end up working the frier at KFC.