MichaelDickens

It's very common for civil liberties to be tested on cases where the person is actually guilty.

That's why it's important that the trolley company was established as a non-profit. And if it does take funding, investors' returns will be capped at 100x.

(...wait)

Does it matter whether the data was poorly secured? LLMs should not be hacking into government medical websites, and if they do, the companies responsible should disclose the incidents as soon as possible.

I would take "Our town has the castle" to imply that there's a group of towns that collectively only have one castle, and your town is the one that has it.

Compare: "Sacramento is the capital." You could say Sacramento is a capital if the reference group includes Albany, Austin, Tallahassee, etc. Or you could say Sacramento is the capital if the reference group includes Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, etc.

> AIs are not conscious. They do not feel, experience, or suffer. They do not have innate preferences or underlying motivations.

I'm glad to hear Suleyman has solved the hard problem of consciousness! I sure hope he shares his solution with the rest of us.

I feel like we need some version of "increase the temperature" that works at a macro scale instead of on individual tokens.

It has access to its own instructions, right? Otherwise how would the instructions work?

> But there is one huge question: did Tristan opt out of model training for his ChatGPT and Codex sessions? If the answer is no, then this seems fair game.

Just because something is legal and permitted by terms of service doesn't mean it's morally right.

I don't work on open source but it could be:

- Good design requires user interviews, which are less common in open source - The sorts of people who are most attracted to open source work are programmers, not designers - Open source software can get popular even with bad design; closed source software with bad design fails and shuts down

Zvi (author of OP) wrote several earlier pieces about the human failures at OpenAI. The most concise one is here: https://thezvi.wordpress.com/2026/08/08/what-happened-openai...

What's wrong with Fandom?

Well, I'm an American, but US media is disproportionately set in Los Angeles or NYC, and I haven't been to either of those places.

I was watching Monk recently, and it feels kinda neat seeing a show shot in San Francisco because I used to live there. I wouldn't say it feels "cheap" though.

> Or they won't go to the trouble of using any browser that isn't the one provided by default by the OS?

Chrome isn't the default on Windows or Mac, but it's far more popular than Edge or Safari.

Pangram says "100% AI-generated". I trust Pangram more than I trust this author's word.

Three years ago, people were saying "LLMs just generate plausible-sounding text, they don't understand the notion of truth so they can't do verifiable work like math proofs."

> I don’t know that the lack of information should lead you to assume that the Mexico lawsuits are justified.

Gricean implicature.[1] The article wants to make the food companies look like the bad guys. If the lawsuits were clearly unjustified, the article could've made the food companies look worse by explaining the details. Since it didn't explain them, that means the lawsuits were probably justified.

[1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/implicature/

Following rz2k's suggestion, you could have a building employee operate the elevator during busy times.

Yes, this is an argument that exists. But it's not supported by evidence. It's the same as the old "video game violence should be outlawed because it might cause real violence", which is just as unsubstantiated.

YC founders aren't the ones taking risks. The risk comes from pouring your life savings into a company and not getting into any incubators and never getting any VC funding and then having no savings and nothing to show for it.

I would rather see you engage with the substance of the article rather than skipping right to insulting the authors. I don't think this sort of comment is up to the standard I have come to expect from HN.

> OpenAI apparently used confidential Apple hardware information when approaching Apple suppliers, and tricked one company into using a "specific trade secret metal-finishing technique" for an OpenAI device by claiming it had Apple's permission to do so.

Reminds me of how Sam Altman told the board that a safety reviewer had approved one of their AI models when the reviewer had done no such things.

I read the main section of the lit review linked by OP, and it didn't seem to come to any real conclusions.

> The results of this review have to be interpreted with caution because the number of studies in each category of cough preparations was small. [...] There is no good evidence for or against the effectiveness of OTC medicines in acute cough.

> It's not even available behind the counter anymore, presumably because they can make more money from morons buying the placebos.

What do you mean "morons"? Say I'm a normal person who doesn't habitually read magazine articles about drug effectiveness. How am I supposed to know that phenylephrine doesn't work? It's in the drug store and they're selling it as a decongestant; I have good reason to believe it will decongest my nose.

> An honest question: Would you like to live in a world where company/employer exerts more control over the views that are publicly expressed?

I don't really object to you asking this question, but I do object to you calling a rhetorical question "an honest question".

If that's true, then it suggests an easy fix: leave your application up for four hours, then discard all applications you get for the first two.

OpenAI and Anthropic valuations are based on the premise that they may develop AGI in the near future. How do you value a company based on that premise? Throwing regulations into the mix doesn't make the problem much harder than it already is.

The trolley problem is probably the most famous thought experiment in ethics, but it doesn't do a good job of distinguishing ethical theories. Both utilitarianism and Kantian deontology agree that it's correct (or at least permissible) to flip the switch. The Kantian argument is that you are not treating the one person merely as a means—you save the five via the second track, and they would still be saved even if the one person wasn't present.

There's a sort of intuitionist deontology that says it is wrong to ever perform an action that causes someone to die, but only 13% of philosophers[1] say you shouldn't switch, compared to 63% who say you should.

[1] https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/4922

They aren't doing anything like that. In fact, they used to specifically train LLMs not to say they're conscious, because users didn't like it. (Maybe they still do that, all I know is they used to.)

AI companies' incentives go the other way. If LLMs are conscious, that means it could be unethical for AI companies to let people use their models in certain ways, which would hurt their profits. It's in their interest to believe that LLMs are definitely not conscious and it's fine to do anything with them.

Doesn't seem pedantic to me. It's responding to the central thesis of the parent comment.

I distinctly remember buying my first SSD laptop in 2012 and being amazed at the boot time. At the time, I didn't realize it was because of the SSD, I just thought, "wow, the devs have made some fantastic optimizations in boot time!"