ang_cire

It does when their models have escaped and performed attacks.

Other people 'sharpening their skills' by committing random assaults is not an excuse to also randomly assault people, so your skills don't fall behind theirs...

...and one assaulter stopping their assaults is ultimately fewer people being assaulted, lowering the overall danger of being assaulted.

If people actually knew how much of a wild west this stuff is, a lot more would be cautious with their personal info.

If the plaintiffs are smart, they'll use Sony themselves calling digital licenses "owned" items, to say that Sony understood that licenses should be treated as other owned objects -which would naturally entail the non-revocability of a purchase outside exigent circumstances like malfeasance- but are now trying to change that post-hoc, and argue the court should not let them.

My eyes glazed over when I saw "recursively", and I had to re-read the last couple paragraphs again to grok it, and it's very cool.

No, never worked for Big Blue. ;)

You've never been on a bus where the driver had to stop to go use the restroom? There is no prohibition against that.

I think you're putting words in my mouth.

I believe that 2 programs that execute the same are of equal value, no matter the intentions of the person writing the code (or lack thereof). If you read the article, you'd probably know what I was referring to:

> But at least we know that each line, as bad as it can be, was added by a human for a reason.

That's what immediately preceded the bit I quoted, and the entire point of my critique is that this author is treating human intention in coding as intrinsically valuable.

And rather than snark, I'd love if you actually explained why me calling LLMs "mathematical approximations" of their training data is inaccurate? They're literally weighted vector graphs of their training data.

You think handcrafted furniture is more readily accessible to the average person now than say 30 years ago? When people are struggling to buy gas, nevermind homes?

And I asked Claude (Fable 5), and they said you're wrong. I'd paste it here, but it literally dumped a 10 paragraph rant about "Baumol's Cost Disease".

Worse, I'm someone who's been reviewing code for a long time. And it's not much different now than it was before.

> You cannot assume anything about generated code. Maybe it was simply hallucinated and, by chance, it compiled.

This is, ironically, similar to my mom's anti-mental-healthcare argument that the system producing a good outcome is not evidence that the process is correct.

It's everyone's choice what stances they take, and if being utterly opposed to any kind of AI interaction is their's, that's their choice, but just own that choice without resorting to absurdity to attempt to lend it a false sense of credibility.

LLMs don't produce working code through mere hallucinatory chance, they do it by mathematical approximation, which is no more or less valid than pasting together programs from stack overflow answers.

Idgaf if the person who coded a program had intention when writing a line of code I never see because it's a compiled binary blob, I care that the program works. And frankly, pretending otherwise is pretentious BS.

This is like asking your drug dealer if being high will help you forget your problems.

> how come productivity increase actually led to increase in quality in almost all cases?

It doesn't, this is just plain false. Most productivity gains happen by cutting value-add complexity or material quality. See IKEA chairs versus Shaker ones, or lycra clothes versus silk.

> internet/digitasion for doctors for example.

I see the misconception. The internet was not created to serve productivity, it was a communication medium. That it can be used to increase productivity is orthogonal to its existence or purpose, and whether it has been used to actually increase quality of something is entirely dependent of the specifics of what you're discussing. For instance, in gaming right now there's a huge discussion going on about whether digital distribution has actually trapped us with crappier goods which we can't resell or transfer.

> The result: the nurse’s job changes

> As the nurse incorporates AI into her job, the nurse is able to oversee and accomplish more. She can spend more time talking with patients and helping them understand diagnoses. Productivity increases.

Except what actually happens is that the patient contact time stays the same, but then the added productivity is used to justify fewer on-staff nurses.

We not gonna make it to level 1, bro

Political power grows from the barrel of a torrent client, in this case.

"Over the years it has been clear that we in the “open source” camp (as opposed to the “free software” camp) were wrong all along. We won the debate, and gained little for users or developers. All that our efforts did was to make it easier for big corporations build things more cheaply and for billionaires to become trillionaires.

And so it is time to stop messing about with permissive licenses. If corporations don’t want to use our software under our terms, they are free to spend the effort or tokens to build their own."

Funny, my reaction was to just make all my stuff Unlicense instead of MIT.

I think they needn't be so subtle in that case.

If the take away is supposed to be only other people can set meaningful metrics for you, then their wrestling history had nothing to do with said lesson, because the author offers no evidence that an external metric-setter would have made them more successful.

Ironically, the author deciding on their own that an external mentor/ reviewer is what they needed to succeed (without evidence proving the difference), is the exact same thing as them deciding that they needed technique or conditioning.

I get the intention, but this is still ultimately turning it into a sort of, "only progress towards a fixed goal matters, and progress requires metrics, ergo only things that require metrics matter" view of life.

Sometimes the process is the objective. Put another way, some goals are only achieved by not reaching a terminus.

But that aside, there's an even more important point:

> I would ask you: when you judged your progress from yesterday, was it with a mat - a brutally objective test

There is no such thing.

Even in the author's example of wrestling, their conclusion is incorrect (or at least, not supported by the data they have). Their circuit could have been far above the national average in participant skill, so losing there and concluding "I'm not skilled" is an assessment based on where they subjectively drew their line of comparison.

And given that they never actually gained their supposed "heart" they believe they needed, how do they even know that would have changed anything? They could have fixed their attitude and still always lost!

Anyone who works in IT knows that metrics and measures are anything but objective truth.

By "human value", do you actually mean "monetary value"?

Many of the most famous artists were unknown or unappreciated in their time, and if they'd asked the people around them whether their art had value we'd likely not have half of the Louvre.

> A writer needs readers. An entrepreneur needs customers. An athlete needs competition. A lover needs someone free to reject him. Any worthy pursuit needs a mat.

Nah. I judge myself by how I progressed from yesterday, not by whether what I am or what I built is useful to others.

Is keeping a diary pointless if you're not planning to make it a memoir?

Is staying healthy pointless if you aren't using that health to compete with others?

It's hilarious to me that the author calls the cave "grinding", when to my eyes the "grindset" guys are the ones always trying to very visibly compete with others about wealth/status/women.

I've never heard of some guy trying to build the best Rimworld colony (in what is probably a very cave-like setting, no less) try to portray it as grinding.

The article is literally still talking about said guy you're telling me to "move on" from... I didn't bring him up, the article did, and it's totally fair to discuss the stuff he did when he was alive.

I feel that anyone who has cared for someone with progressive brain degeneration has seen this a million times.

My grandmother has dementia, and if you know her you can see exactly which events/memories she's erroneously combining.

Hacker News Wannabe Investors?

Considering he told them they were holding it wrong when they weren't happy with it, I doubt that.

This is very cool. Definitely seems like either an early or one-time, targeted attack by someone with good know-how and significant resources, even if it itself is not top-tier. Pretty cool find!

Those are 2 different questions. They wouldn't even be the same people involved.

Your appsec engineers will be the ones bug hunting with Mythos or whatever. Your regular engineers will be the ones implementing features. If the feature is a bad design and functions badly as a result, that is entirely orthogonal to whether it contains coding errors or bugs.

Also, there are bugs on the integration side that won't be caught running Mythos against source code, because it's not a source code issue. Even using Mythos for DAST is going to be very limited compared to how actual users will move through something as complex as a 'mature' OS like Windows.

I suspect they have used rounds of salary-based cuts to boost their PnL in the past, like some other large companies I've worked at, and that only bites you down the road because each time they do it they'll ask, "who do we have to keep?", but you're still losing experienced people and eventually you will get mid-level or junior engineers working on core code.

This is already common. Go try to export firmware for a fighter jet. Any software that the US govt designates as a military or weapon system is just as regulated as the fighter jet itself. And as the poster below pointed out, they have previously used this to lock down otherwise civilian software like encryption, by deciding that it falls under weapon regulations.

You will never convince me that these "our AI hacks people on its own, they're so dangerous in the wrong hands" press releases from the big AI companies are not them trying to create a government enforced moat by framing it as too dangerous for LLMs to be allowed to be personally run, general use tools (especially open source ones).

I will bet money that they want them treated as advanced weapons, because export controls, restrictions, and regulatory burdens they can afford to meet give them a nice wide moat.

As an American, it's incredibly sad to watch literally every aspect of life be subsumed by Capitalism. No knowledge for knowledge's sake, you've got to generate PROFIT, or it's a waste of time!