sillyfluke

>You can't train LLMs on proprietary data, at least not if you want to make that LLM as accessible as Gemini. Otherwise random people can ask it your home address.

If this is your only criteria I think you have a misunderstanding of what proprietary data is and ways companies can mitigate the situation in the inference stage.

No one should apologize for feeling conflicted while giving an issue considerable thought. Constantly reassessing your position based on the changing nature of the world should be encouraged to be the default approach.("Constantly" within reason of course).

I can imagine some Americans making a decision based on the threat of other authortarian states and being left completely bewildered when they have to grapple with the notion that their government may be the bigger threat to their own security.

Yes, once you look at the daylight times it's clear that UK time naturally fits Spain better.

>Kids walking, biking, and being driven to school in mornings in darkness ... that's also what permanent DST gives us.

I think this is the worst thing about it frankly, the kids. And you can't just push the school time back cause it interferes with the parents getting to work.

>it is perhaps also damning that any time someone wants to smear zuck they have to reach 20 years into the past.

It is perhaps not, and perhaps a bit disingenuous to claim so in good faith, as if it exceeds your abilities to search for the list of facebook scandals in the decades following and see that the behavior is often consistent with this quote. Even if you choose to ignore all that, it's also not very reasonable to expect troves of juicier quotes after all the C-suites, lawyers, and HR departments showed up locked everything down with corporate speak. I'm sure if facebook were to be so kind as to leak all the messages and audio of zuck's internal comms since that time people would be able to have many other juicy quotes to work with.

It is often referenced because it's the best quote that represents the trailblazing era of preying on users' undying thirst for convenience in order to package their private data as a product.

This looks like more OpenAI damage control. Since the Pentagon accuses Dario of having a "God-like complex" one can only surmise that the potential future guardrails Altman claims they can employ are purely optional for the Pentagon when push comes to shove.

But this made me chuckle:

>U.S. intelligence agencies including the C.I.A., which uses Anthropic’s A.I. technology,

...just cause it has amusing parallels with those stories about how the Pentagon were supporting the Kurds and the C.I.A was propping up ISIS in Syria. Now we have their AI agents fighting out in the field to look forward to in the future!

With Anthropic it's just the rest of the world that is fucked, with OpenAI it's the whole world including the US that is fucked. How relieving.

>Iran which is why Israel struck at daytime because

Israel struck because they had info that some people were going to be at a specific place at a specific time. One would suppose they could have chosen Saturday for another reason only if they had the luxury of continuous intelligence providing multiple options with equal chances of success. In that case, choosing that day to avoid unnecessary economic volatilty for you and your allies makes sense.

> It sounds exactly like how someone would respond if they've been swimming in legal memos for months.

I think you're being highly speculative. The part you quoted from the WaPo doesn't even state the defense official was complaining about about any "legalese" reponse, that seems like a projection on your part. The only info you gave in your comment about what Dario said is only a defense official's paraphrasing. It seems a simply case of Dario refusing to give a blank check in all scenerios whereas the defense official, for maximum impact, chose to portray "not having a blank check" as "having to call Anthropic" in every case where "help" is given by an LLM. The appearance of "misunderstanding" you're seeing in the media is not about the parties' misunderstanding of what the other side wants, it's simply a fallout from each side fighting to control the narrative.

If Altman didn't go round cringe-inducingly saying he doesn't (relatively) have much of nor care about money and how he doesn't have a stake in OpenAI while plotting his power-hungry moves, and publish equally repulsive articles like "missionaries over mercenaries" while acting like the latter, then you might have hade a point. But given all that, sorry no.

It is bizarre. I like how, "past performance predicts future performance" is supposed to apply to founders and companies but completely disregarded for a two term president and admin, as if we have no idea how they will operate in the future.

Anthropic, with its current war chest, is supposedly employeeing lawyers that are misunderstanding the Department of War? This is considered to be the likelier of possibilities, am I understanding this correctly?

they made a whole movie based on this beaten-to-death teen excuse?

A few days before this article was posted to HN, I had commented (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47086836 ) on a post triggered by the drop in quality or engagement of the Show HN page. I was playing with the phrase "everyone and their dog" that the person I was responding to used and saying the "and their dog" part was more problematic than the "everyone" part, drawing a parallel between the dog and an LLM by implying that the solutions they both would produce would lack the guarentee of human intentionality and ownership.

And then your dog read my comment and said "hold by biscuits" I guess.

>It is only by exploiting the surplus of large amounts of workers

Well, it's possible for a person to become a billonaire without directly doing this. I think it was said somewhere that Lebron James was one of the first wage billionaires, due to his 20+ years on top of the NBA.

But loosening the statement a little, if the person themselves hasn't its almost certain that the people that have paid them have (in the case of sports athletes, the companies paying for the ads).

Be that as it may, being a wage-slave billionaire still leaves you less exposed to direct first-hand moral dillemas than the CEOs of companies.

That seems a tad reductionist. Why not just say the iPhone was completely inconsequential because afterall it's simply another "computer". Why not go even back further and start the timer at the first physical implementation of a Turing machine?

The iPhone killer UX + App store release can be directly traced to the growth in tech in the subsequent years its release.

The same underlying magic that enables LLMs to be faster than a brute force SQL query on all the worlds data while producing "good enough" results appears to be the very thing that is creating hallucinations and finite context windows. ie there is no free lunch. It seems to be the theory in many in the field (ilya included?) that the obstacle might not be overcome without an LLM-level breakthrough in AI research, or maybe more likely, a breakthrough in hardware. Big tech until at least recently seems to have thought they can brute force it with energy (nuclear). But who's paying?

It didn't take mobile apps with the launch of the iPhone 20 years to add to the economy though, did it?

Bottom line, no one's buying your vibeslop when they can create and maintain their own for their custom needs. And if we're not buying each others vibeslop there's no productivity to be measured in the economy.

With all this recent Claw stuff, it's weird that as people who should be championing the opposite due to our field of study or industry, some of us are now pushing a method of automation that is akin to robo vaccums randomly tracking dogshit across the carpet.

In my working environment, people get dressed down for repeatedly communicating incorrect information. If they do it repeatedly in an automated fashion they will be publically shamed if they are senior enough.

I have no idea what benefit a human-in-loop for sending an automatically generated emails or agent generated sdks or buliding blocks has when there is no guarentee or even a probability of correctness attached to the result. The effort for vaildating and editing a generated email can be equally or greater than manually writing a regular email let alone one of certain complexity or significance.

And what do we do to create to try to guarentee a semblance of correctness? We add another layer of automated validation performed by, you guessed it, the same crew of wacky fuzzy operators that can inject correct sounding gibberish or business workflows at any moment.

It's almost like trying to build a house of cards faster than the speed with which it is collapsing. There seems to be a morbid fascination among even the best of us with how far things can be taken until this way forward leads to some indisputable catastrophe.

>One of my most promising projects I was discussing with a friend and we realized together we could potentially use these tools to build a two person agency with no need to hire anyone ever...My current belief is not that AI will replace traditional software engineering it will replace a good chunk of the entire model of software

You're not following your last line to its logical conclusion regarding your own prospects: no one is going to buy the vibeslop your two person agency is selling because they'd rather create and maintain their own vibeslop instead of dealing with yours.

If you follow some of your thoughts to their logical conclusion you'll realize the parent is right: there will be limited productivity that ends up fueling the economy when nobody is buying each other's vibeslop.

>funny that so many people are using AI and still hasn't really shown up in productivity numbers or product quality yet.

That's because the threat is now not other businesses, but your own users who decide to vibe-code their own "Claw" product instead of using your company's vibeslop, so there are no buyers for your single-week product. All these new harness developers are engaging in resume-driven development to save their own asses. The only ones that are not naked when the tide recedes are the ones that are able to jump to the next layer of abstraction on the infinite staircase, until the next tide comes five seconds later.

The claim that is often repeated in discussions is that Firefox is completely dependent on that money and can't survive without it.

Not having to go the house for that specific info and being able to create a shortlist of houses beforehand would be preferable I would think.

You seem to be insisting on arguing against arguments that have not been made and ignoring the whole point of the original post.

I am having to repeat the beginning of my previous comment:

>>The trigger for the [original] post was about post-AI Show HN, not about about whether vibe-coding is of value to vibe-coders.

The topic is: The drop in quality of post-AI Show HN. It is specifically about this community. Please read the context the OP has referenced in their own post:

Is Show HN Dead? No, but it's Drowning

https://www.arthurcnops.blog/death-of-show-hn/

Instead of adressing the specifics of that post you seem to ignore the points that were made there and seem to prefer to talk about why vibe-coding solutions should be interesting to pre-AI programmers. Ok, let's go there.

>if no-one needs to think about rasterisation and clever optimisation algorithms, and it's easy to build a 3D engine, I thought, then everyone and their dog will make a game and we'll drown in crappy generic-looking rubbish. [Turns out that's not the case.]

Here in this context, you are confusing "easy" with "non-human". Specifically, when people here decry the banality and tediousness of perusing and reviewing vibe-coded solutions by "everyone and their dog" the emphasis is on and their dog. Let's be clear, a non-deterministic non-human entity that is coding something by approximating the intentions of a human is not the same thing as a human developing a 3D engine or SDK end-to-end with human intentionality no matter how "easy" coding a 3D engine has become. So it leaves it to the HN reader to figure out what level of ownership the human poster has over their 90% vibe-coded solution. It's no surprise that HN readers, when alerted to the possibility via a Show HN post, would rather just vibe-code a solution themselves if they are interested in the problem space instead of engaging with the Show HN post itself. When hard-pressed, I can think of very few instances where programmers would not prefer to vibe-code there own solution instead of test-running and reviewing someone else's AI slop. Some of the casual statistics that the original posters have bothered to look at seem to bear this out.

I think you're missing the general point of the post.

>AI frees my human brain to think about goals, features, concepts, user experience and "big picture" stuff.

The trigger for the post was about post-AI Show HN, not about about whether vibe-coding is of value to vibe-coders, whatever their coding chops are. For Show HN posts, the sentence I quoted precisely describes the things that would be mind-numbingly boring to Show HN readers.

pre-AI, what was impressive to Show HN readers was that you were able to actually implement all that you describe in that sentence by yourselves and also have some biochemist commenting, "I'm working at a so-and-so research lab and this is exactly what I was looking for!"

Now the biochemist is out there vibe-coding their own solution, and now, there is no way for the HN reader to differentiate your "robust" entry from a completely vibe-code noobie entry, no matter how long you worked on the "important stuff".

Why? because the barrier of entry has been completely obliterated. What we took for granted was that "knowing how to code" was a proxy filter for "thought and worked hard on the problem." And that filter allowed for high-quality posts.

That is why the observation that you know longer can guarentee or have any way of telling quickly that the posters spent some time on the problem is a great observation.

The very value that you gain from vibe-coding is also the very thing that threatens to turn Show HN into a glorified Product Hunt cesspool.

"No one goes there any more, it's too crowded." etc etc

>It must be said that immigration laws pretty much anywhere are rigid, and enforced equally seriously, so it's not just a US-exclusive thing

I'm puzzled how you came to this conclusion since its left completely unsubstantiated in your comment. It's not "enforced equally seriously" in the US itself let alone another country. European citizens for one had no fear of being sent to a detention camp or deported speedily prior to the latest Trump adminstration.

>Its all very London specific.

Your comment is a bit confusing. Did you mean everything except the part you quoted only applies to London? The part you quoted is about the UK not London and seems to contain all that is necessary for someone to understand why a person like Doctorow would have considered leaving at that point in time.

On the positive side, I think the little bit of chaos that came from the natural disorganization of a "free conference" helped me get in to a few rooms despite the general overcrowding, it also made me miss a few talks cause I could never get a grip on the wacky room locations and numberings.

I have this unsubstantiated fear though that having the conference more orderly may actually make things worse.

I liked how some people brought their kids, that was great.

(I found the anti-cash vibe in Brussels outside the conference pretty fucking annoying though. Metro machines that take coins but have no cash slot? What is this bullshit?)

Any current or former NI people? Penny for your thoughts.

It's kind of wild that the founder of this venerable company shared the same stage with Khashoggi's fiance pre-Covid.

It's like attending a memorial of an assasinated Belarus activist and then following it up by attending the premiere of a propaganda movie about Putin's wife.

Someone inside Amazon should keep tabs on the actual non-inflated viewing numbers of this amazing blockbuster for posterity's sake.

Edit: Bezos is not listed as attending (elsewhere Tony Robbins and Mike Tyson are)

>Please read this section of Apple's own document

Don't know if the problem is on my end but your link goes to a 20 page document. If this is not a mistake you should quote the actual section and text you are referrimg to.

The segment of the population that is the target of political vindictiveness from the FBI seems to have changed somewhat with this administration so it makes sense to remind people of the vulnerabilities from time to time.