AlecSchueler

> China needs to invade Taiwan

> It's clear that China is going to use tech

I hear this all the time but the invasion never seems to come. Is it just western projection at this point?

An example of what? You're not making any clear point or engaging with what I asked you.

And how do you map that onto the timescales of states? Because even on the human scale, my grandparents were around for the British Mandate in Palestine. The British government had to win my own lifetime apologise for atrocities carried out in Northern Ireland.

What difference does that make?

The largest empire in global history had influence on contemporary geopolitics. Why should we pretend otherwise?

That might be the case from your position. But if you were a woman whose stalker was able to locate your photos with ease and generate deepfakes or emulate your voice to feed his obsession you might think differently. If you were worrying about your kids surviving tomorrow because an AI system might target their school for the next round it bombings then copyright infringement night not be your top concern.

3% of the global total does seem surprisingly significant.

> If humanity persists another 1000 years on our current trajectory

It's unlikely that we can persist in our current trajectory for another 100 years without catastrophic climate events puttung a stop to all of these endeavours.

Deepening on who your users are you might also say "at least with markdown they write Lisp and make their documents do whatever they like."

That is a pity but on the bright side it also helps people to avoid being stalked and harassed.

Yes, I get you, I recognised that in my final paragraph. But it would better called writing that "makes a lovely point" rather than "lovely writing" if _the prose isn't good" and it reads like _slop_.

> [What is Israel's side of the argument?] What is Russia's side of the argument? What is China's side of the argument? What is USA's side of the argument?

All of these countries but one have launched invasions within the past ten years. What's the obsession with China?

> I can't say whether this was machine-generated or not, but the reason LLMs use these patterns is because they're often used by humans, which is what they're trained to mimic.

It's definitely written by an AI. I understand that people use these same rhetoric devices but the word "mimic" is exactly right. They're not writing like humans, they're mimicking human writing in a way that feels extremely uncanny.

(Hey look, I did the thing too!)

I think your comment was maybe downvoted for being so terse and dismissive.

But you're right that it is anything but a good piece of writing and it is genuinely strange to see people act otherwise.

> That kind of furniture organized more than just objects. It organized a relationship with technology. It suggested that the computer (and with it, the internet) was something used under particular conditions: seated, in that spot, for a certain amount of time. Something that was switched on and off, opened and closed.

It's making a nice point and one that I'm sure most of the people here do find appealing, it's an idea that I relate to myself. But the words used to make that point are bordering on nonsense.

Ok, but then we should look for an actual source beyond "Don't worry that it's garbage, it smells ok in this case."

> How much do they spend to tell everyone about it?

You could see every YCombinator investment as a kind of sidelong marketing for HN.

So we should believe the hallucinations because they sound like something that could be true? Does the LLM in the middle somehow makes it more trustworthy than if GP had just shared their own pattern-matching conjecture?

Doesn't it just use more tokens in reasoning?

> There are still protections and mitigations that targets can do, but those things require humans.

You claimed that there are certain protections and mitigations (i.e. defence moves) which require humans (ergo humans do these things better than AI, necessitating an AI+human team).

But you've still avoided expanding on what they might be, preferring instead to make petty remarks about my imaginative abilities.

Yeah I think we're actually in agreement with the point about it being complicated. In reality I think different people would have react differently but they would all have mixed feelings. So it's impossible to ask "would they be right?" in a sense. Their feelings would be as valid as they would be varied.

Alternatively he sees that you live in your house alone and feel lonely all the time. Maybe you have a small family and a few friends but it's nothing compared to the tribal life he knows.

He sees you spend your day working but rarely get to go outside or do anything active. Even when you're not working you sit behind a desk staring at a screen.

He wonders why you bother will all the technology when it made your life worse. Is he right?

If you listen to the artist less then they will receive less of your money. What's the issue you're seeing there?

I actually agree with you but I love that the response was just a long version of "you're not doing it right!"

> thus the reason why we're seeing them do other things to cut down on inference cost (ie changing their default thinking length).

The dynamic thinking and response length is funny enough the best upgrade I've experienced with the service for more than a year. I really appreciate that when I say or ask something simple the answer now just comes back as a single sentence without having to manually toggle "concise" mode on and off again.

Throttling demand means the sales figures go down which share holders don't like to see.

> If you cannot imagine any value that a human can add to an AI defence, then this conversation is effectively over

I honestly find that a bizarre response in the middle of a discussion but you do you.

Maybe someone else could humour me since you're not in the mood to expand on the point that you made? The topic of the thread was that the ability of the AI tooling is outpacing what individuals can handle. Why would a human then be in a position to defend better than an AI when an AI is in a better position to attack than a human?

> Therefore, there is still value in being the human in Cyber Security

Why? Your logic applies equally well to humans. If the AI attacker fails they move onto the next target, if the human defence fails the victim is fucked.

> There are still protections and mitigations that targets can do, but those things require humans.

Which things would you point to here?

> A well connected professor, with plenty of free time

And not only that but one who was "big on entrepreneurship!" Guy wasn't really rocking the boat, was he?

Responding to a threat and meddling proactively half the world away are quite different things, are they not?

I really can't search the particulars if you're not saying anything specific.