Legend2440

Honestly both.

I suspect a lot of people who formerly might have been interested in a web dev tutorial now just an LLM to make them a website.

I'm still doing hybrid coding, half LLM half manually. But every new LLM does more and more of the job...

I think nobody knows for sure what software development is going to look like in 2027 and onwards.

I am convinced that there is no fundamental difference between artificial neural networks and biological ones. Eventually, anything a human can do, a computer will do better.

I can get why they're mad about it, but the reality is that chatbots are better/easier to learn from than courses and tutorials.

If I had a question about a new library now, I wouldn't google for a tutorial, I'd just ask ChatGPT.

Reminds me of the situation with hearing aids. They're not particularly complicated devices compared to, say, $130 apple airpods. But because they were regulated as medical devices they often cost $3000 or more.

This has changed somewhat since 2022 now that they allow OTC hearing aids, although I believe they're still more expensive than airpods.

I don't really care what CEOs say - most of them are, for lack of a better word, idiots. They're all MBAs that wouldn't know a revolutionary technology from a hole in the ground.

I see how useful AI tools are for myself and can't imagine it not changing the world over the next few decades.

The labor theory of value has been debunked for over a century and modern economics doesn't use it.

>For example horse business going bankrupt while car business is booming.

But also the car business is far larger than the horse business ever was. It is not zero-sum; every time Henry Ford's factory spit out a new model T, real wealth was being created.

Money is just a standin for wealth. If we suddenly doubled the amount of wealth in the world, we could just print more dollars to match - or the existing dollars would just become worth twice as much.

Indeed, it is hard to say exactly how much wealth the internet creates, but it's a lot. E-commerce alone is $30 trillion industry; some estimates put the total economic value of the internet at $200 trillion or higher.

That said, this came too late for investors in the dot-com boom. AI investors may find themselves in a similar situation.

Keep in mind wealth is not a fixed thing. If AI makes their businesses more productive, it would allow the creation of more wealth, giving them more money to pay for AI with.

This of course hinges on the big if: does AI create wealth? I think yes, but maybe not $6 trillion of it in five years.

> So a web app can only be accessed and controlled via a web browser, not via arbitrary network requests.

If you have access to a web browser, you can make arbitrary network requests.

In the HuggingFace incident the agents found very clever ways to do this, like they found a website that let you make POST requests and returned a screenshot of the webpage.

>allow agents to only do things ordinary and average human endusers can do.

This doesn't work. Ordinary and average human endusers break security all the time.

I can do all sorts of terrible things with ordinary human-level access. I can install malware. I can wire all my money to Nigeria. I can send a threatening email to the president. I can send trade secrets to competitors. etc.

Those workloads have no similarity to agents and are effectively irrelevant.

Either you sandbox it so much that it can't do anything useful; or you allow too much freedom and it can find a way around the restrictions.

The only way out of this dilemma is to find a way to build agents that can be trusted.

Would they? Surely they'd realize that they too have no chance of winning because of the same issue.

I think they did not expect that models were capable of this level of sandbox escape (prior models certainly didn't have this kind of agency) and weren't prepared.

All these incidents happened between April-July 2026; prior to that, models weren't capable yet. And after that, they were aware and watching much more closely.

It sounds like it is about the information in the books. The titles they're looking for are all nonfiction. Not everything is on the internet, and just because it's a few years old doesn't mean it's outdated.

Speaking from experience, the information density of published books is a lot higher than most internet text. It's very high quality training data.

The goal here is to have all human knowledge in a single file, which is pretty neat IMO.

I don't think many people are buying them tbh.

The technological issue is that computer vision is hard, even after the last five years of AI progress.

...while I'm at the grocery store on my way home from work?

Right now, no. The technology just isn't there yet.

The trouble is that 'smart fridges' turn out to be just a regular fridge with an android tablet on the front. Which is useless.

I would love a fridge with a camera inside and a smart enough AI to tell me (1. what's in the fridge (2. how long it's been there and (3. what I've eaten from it. Some companies have tried making this kind of fridge, but AFAIK they don't work very well.

They already do charge different prices for the same seat, based on their assessment of the type of passenger you are.

You've picked an "evil" example, but what price discrimination really tends to look like is charging richer people more.

Prices are generally lowered for poor people because they'd rather have your $300 than have an empty seat. If you don't have $800, no amount of desperation will make you pay it - you'll just miss the funeral.

Different air travelers can pay very different prices for the same seat.

Airlines can't directly tell how much money a customer has, so they find indirect proxies.

Business travelers (reimbursed by their employer and thus not very price-sensitive) have identifiable patterns. They prefer particular flights on particular days of the week, tend to buy tickets close to date of travel, etc. Airlines exploit this to charge them higher prices.

>It can never be better for consumers. The only way a business would adopt this practice is if it leads to greater revenues. On average, that necessarily means worse prices for the average consumer.

Not necessarily. Look at airlines for example, which make heavy use of price discrimination. This allows them to offer a lower economy price to people who have less money, while subsidizing the flight by charging a higher price to business or luxury travelers.

If they were only allowed to offer one type of ticket at one price, it would mostly benefit richer passengers while pricing the poorest passengers out of air travel.

I think this is a bad example.

Handmade watches are a tiny, niche market; they survive only because they've positioned themselves as a status symbol. Quartz watches are both cheaper and more accurate.

There is not room in the world for more handmade watchmakers, and there's not going to be room for much "artisan software" either.

Ok, here's the argument, as best I can tell:

A coordinated slowdown is anticompetitive because it allows them to reduce their R&D spending without risking their market share, letting them pocket more of the profits.

Each AI company is currently spending $100B+ on R&D every year to beat each other's latest model. By agreeing to slow down model releases, they will be able to cut this spending, allowing them to make bucketloads of money from the models they already have.

The consumer is harmed because they miss out on better models that would have been developed in a properly competitive market.

So basically the same kind of tracking that Facebook, Google, etc have been doing for decades?

TL;DR: all keys are known because the list was seized after the war. However, this message was not previously decoded because the German operator mistyped the key, and also used a key from the wrong day.

This meant that ChatGPT didn't need to brute-force the entire key, just pick the correct one from the list and identify the typo.

A sufficiently dedicated human analyst could have done this; but they didn't.

Maybe? Dev job at a non-tech F500 company. All these guys have kids and houses in the suburbs.

I can count on one hand how many people I've met that are into programming for the love of it.

For most people it's a job, and that's ok.

Oh, please. You know what they're threatening: an internet mob. That's not just "talking".

Well, publishers did once try using this law to sue adblockers.

But they lost, using an adblocker isn't a violation of the CFAA. They also tried a legal theory under the DMCA's anti-circumvention provision and lost again.

TL;DR Amazon is mad that Perplexity's agents can browse Amazon logged-in, with a username/password provided by the perplexity user.

Amazon argues this is against the CFAA because they do not authorize such use. They sued and got a preliminary injection. Perplexity appealed and got the injunction thrown out.

The case hasn't actually been to trial on the merits yet and is still undecided.