themafia

It's easy to find Wolfram tedious but I've not seem him be particularly disruptive to other efforts nor did his crankery lead to his current success. He's on the same level with Eric Weinstein. Your best bet is to ignore them.

The basic failure mode I would expect:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeFY9u69tkE

The adjoining roads have a large speed differential. The runoff areas around this project do not appear as if designed with this in mind. I predict a few horrible accidents and some hamfisted redesigns.

The local news has a ground level view of this project:

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/jlPMB7c0RyQ

The Internet (mostly), the C language, the Unix Operating System were all developed and deployed on PDPs. The BASIC language /and/ an 8080 emulator was developed on a PDP in order to deploy to the Altair.

I would argue that Intel was so highly influenced by Datapoint due to sheer proximity and early inexperience in the field.

The mechanism I use is ordered. All specific aliases are tried first and then it falls through to the catch-all forwarding rule.

So, it's a piece of cake to add "{random}@example.com" to the block list. Usually it's something like "msg-bestbuy@example.com".

Noise is a really underrated security layer.

Probably not. And you certainly cannot use a retrospective analysis to answer this question.

What you needed was a survey.

> Not unlike uploading a personal photo or video to social media

I've granted them a limited license to use it.

> that's not yours anymore.

Not by any definition in the contract or in law is this true.

> You gave all rights away when you put it on their servers.

I gave away some rights. I also got something in return. Attention. And at the end of the day I'm completely entitled to turn around and sell copies of this work for profit. The only thing I can't do is sell an /exclusive/ license because that is no longer available.

None of this provides any implication for people who upload code to their own websites. Which these rapacious LLMs bots happily index, sometimes to the extent they actually crush the site, or create unusual costs for the owner.

Finally none of these LLM companies tell you where the source came from. Whether it is copyrighted, whether ownership rights are retained, or whether the code can be used publicly or not, and if so, which license it's covered by.

You're using the lens of social media contracts to understand something far larger and more important. It's lead you to some bizarre conclusions and huge oversites.

What if someone steals my work and then uploads it to facebook and claims it as their own? Do the rights no longer exist because it got uploaded to Meta?

> While Minecraft is just a game

It's more than just a game. It's a bespoke social network. It's a merchandise generator. It produced an entire hollywood movie. It's become a cultural reference.

> My answer: soon. By the end of this year or next, the year after at the very latest.

Which is based on what?

> AI can process the entire world

It can process what is in it's training set. Which is a monumental gap to step over. Failing to understand this leads to all kinds of silly predictions and mindless prognostication.

I'd like to see an AI article based on data and not paragraphs of internal monologue spewed out onto the internet.

Humans gain knowledge through experiments. Without a physical body it has no chance of performing the same. That it can update it's training weights does not seem particularly significant.

A similar Luddite view formed in the 1990s. It turns out humanity constantly beats the expectations of economists. It makes you wonder if the "science" of economy is almost entirely bankrupt either in morality or imagination or same dangerous combination of both.

> Humanity simply does not have a strategy to ensure it remains safe through RSI.

Turn off the power. It's pretty simple. Leave it to an economist to forget about input costs. Your "super intelligence" only matters if it's actually more energy efficient than a human being and for a million years of evolution humanity is a much harder target to beat than this author seems to realize.

The word happiness, fulfillment or even freedom didn't come to mind?

Well at least you're planning to have a very healthy population of enslaved serfs. I'm sure they'll appreciate all you've done for them.

One of those is deterministic. The other fails to be in nearly every conceivable way.

Non technical users still write down their passwords. So: no.

Do technical users have the option to install something better? Yes? Then this has no purpose.

...don't look now, but, there's a trillion dollar gorrilla in the room right behind you.

> they do not really care

What would their choice be anyways? It's like saying "yet people still die, they do not really care, they even engage in activities which hasten their deaths!"

Having helped more than a few users with down PCs. They're mostly not even aware these backups exist. When you explain it to them the result is a mixture of relief and then fear that this was occurring without their awareness.

If only Google kept "don't be evil."

Just because you managed to get a billion dollars of value attributed to your name does not mean that you know how to earn a billion dollars or that you have the first worthwhile clue to share to anyone else how they should do it. It's the blind trap of the successful. They lose situational awareness and can no longer accurately map their actions onto the world they actually live in.

Which is probably why this immediately devolves into a bunch of silly math and equally silly proclamations that don't seem rooted in any actual defined course of action. This is less than worthless, it's actively harmful.

> I've got kids

And this requires _a billion_ dollars? Perhaps an intentionally narrowed scope would be good for some of the HN audience.

Let me guess, when confronted with uncomfortable information that requires you to think longer than you are used to, you devolve to false dichotomies into defend your ego?

> It's tough to answer because you want to hedge

You should just be honest. If you're not a good fit for the company then you should honestly be eager to discover this.

> I've been responding with a sort of long winded answer

"I don't. I personally don't find value in them for the type of work I do. I am also uncomfortable with using their outputs under the current copyright regime. I also question how competitive any organization can possibly be if LLMs become the main driver of their work products."

> I've had more bad results than good the few times I've tried them

"I prefer to write correct code rather than debug bad code generated from a limited context window."

Two spoiled rich kids arguing over who's morality is the least worst.

That this moment is held up as some great exchange in business is annoying. That our regulatory agencies are perennially sleep at the switch and allow this nonsense to keep happening is extremely frustrating.

It seems to me like the lies are both for the same reason. To capture attention and profits that are not deserved.

> A simple linear combination of every weight did not degrade the performance of the model, but enhanced it.

Which could be a signal that your "performance" was so abysmal in the first place that even randomly applied training methods can't make it _worse_.

It's actually an institutional success since prison labor is so often utilized in the United States. The truth is they're just lying to you.

When they choose the "DNA loci" to do SRT "matching" in the first place they convinced themselves it was a unique fingerprint and there never would be any duplicates in the database.

It only took a few years.

They've since changed and expanded the standard "DNA loci" to compensate.

> it would be almost impossible for even the most corrupt moron to justify creating evidence out of thin air.

Yet we have many examples of this precise thing happening. This is because the police carry immense credibility when testifying. This is also why the "Brady List" exists.

> the defence who would be able to immediately identify if an image or video had been created

How? Just pure skill? Again, we can see from appeals court proceedings, they miss details all the time. The system of "public defense" in the United States is severely lacking.

You can burn negatives. You can fake polaroids, really, just think about how a camera itself must operate and you'll see why instantly. Darkrooms used to be far more common before digital photography my Junior and High school both had them.

What makes evidence "pixel perfect?" What digital photographs don't have to involve a chain of custody? Literally the first question the defense will ask is "how did you get this picture." If you say you pulled from a security system they can just go ask for the originals. This happens all the time.

Where people are getting confused is it's almost never _one_ piece of evidence that's used to convict you; although, it may be a single piece of evidence which convinces your attourney to railroad you into a plea deal.

> the US considers any country its ally.

It shares that intelligence with the countries it was gathered from. It's been explicitly stated many times that this is an intentional work around for weak constitutional provisions on protection of citizens.

I spy on your guys. You spy on mine. We all share notes.

This isn't a "The US vs. The World" this is "The Wealthy vs. The Poor."

That's what happens when you have a two party system but more than two political philosophies. Given that both parties will work tirelessly to prevent a third party from forming I think the level of corruption should be understood to extend _well past_ the White House.