birn559

Sound like it's very realistic that Israel will target the regime itself soon. I don't think the US will actively support it, though.

Iranian people won't suddenly start to like the regime just because certain sites were destroyed.

I believe no US administration ever acknowledged the ICC. By the way, the German chancellor just said he wouldn't arrest Netanyahu if he came to Germany.

It's not just a Trump thing.

Care to elaborate? A random person doubting things doesn't help other people or bringing a discussion forward.

There is another easy fix: Allow banks to educate customers, to maybe delay a transaction a bit, but don't allow them to halt or deny a transaction.

That's not at all what parent comment said or implied. When A is only used for X and B is needed for A, then it does not follow that B is only used for X.

Which is fine in general. It has been a selling point for SQL or C, for example. What I wanted to say is that for AI output becoming a replacement for code, a necessary requirement is that the output becomes deterministic. While LLMs provide that technically, I am not sure the "culture" that has evolved the technology will lead to product that provide determinism.

Having full ownership over your money in digital form has quite a lot of disadvantages, so many disadvantages that it makes it a bad idea to do it in general. However, there are a few advantages under certain circumstances. You can easily wire money-equivalent into a country where banks are closed. It also forces countries to be a bit more cautious with acute money regulations in times of crisis (because Bitcoin is a tool to circumvent those).

I do however agree with your post on general. Bitcoin (and all other crypto currencies) is used for money laundering, speculation, doing things that would be illegal with properly regulated assets and for buying illegal things like drugs.

It's been around for quite some time, if there were more use cases we would already know by now. There has also been no substantial development since Etherium "let's make it turing complete because what could go wrong lol" and the world pretty much agreed that it's a bad idea to couple money transfer logic to publicly available code while a bug can make you lose all your money connected to that logic.

It's not like it wouldn't be possible in general. But nobody cares and obviously nobody sees how serious development would lead to anything useful (very few counter-examples like the people that created Monero).

Because any precise description of what the computer is supposed to do is already code as we know it. AI can fill in the gaps between natural language and programming by guessing and because you don't always care about the "how" only about the "what". The more you care about the "how" you have to become more precise in your language to reduce the guess work of the AI to the point that your input to the AI is already code.

The question is: how much do we really care about the "how", even when we think we care about it? Modern programming language don't do guessing work, but they already abstract away quite a lot of the "how".

I believe that's the original argument in favor of coding in assembler and that it will stay relevant.

Following this argument, what AI is really missing is determinism to a far extend. I can't just save my input I have given to an AI and can be sure that it will produce the exact same output in a year from now on.

The same argument still applies.

All of the mentioned bullet points could be applied to other countries.

While I think there's quite a lot of antisemitism out there, I find it questionable trying to deduce antisemitism. Explicitly expressed antisemitism itself is something else. I also find it very questionable to redefine the term that it includes deductions.

That would have the consequence that naturalized citizen would be second class. Because they have to watch out for what to say, otherwise somebody might denounce them and they have to fight against their live being destroyed.

They even let people fly with their Laptops. From what I know batteries with stiff casing that can't be easily penetrated are quite safe.

I only buy from big brands though. Works never buy no name stuff.

One problem is that for some people, the daily calories used by the body lowers when you reduce the calories intake (mostly by adjusting NEAT). So for some people it's harder to lose weight than for others.

Sweeteners have been researched quite extensively. If there are problems with regular typical consumption, the effect size is very small.

Small as in "the alternatives are most likely worse" or as in "you are consuming already a dozen other things that are known to be more problematic by an order of magnitude and you should focus on them instead".

Fun fact: last part of his name "Räder" is a German word that translate to "wheels" which I find weirdly fitting.

Something that you can sensibly express as a fraction of the revenue of Meta is significant though.

It must be low enough that Meta never seriously considers to pull out of Europe.

The process is far from perfect, but it works well enough mid-term and works pretty well long-term.

It's also better than any alternatives, as far as I know. Haven't heard people pushing the idea of restructuring the process, the only exception being that journals shouldn't cost (that much) money and instead institutions should pay for publishing a paper. This wouldn't however change the foundation of the process.

One assumption for such theories that is very important and very wrong is that the elite would cooperate with each other long enough and work on the same goals long term. Newest very public instance is Elon breaking with Trump. Of course such people are able to create strategic partnerships, but it's not like their incentives and motives are aligned.

It's a group of people with relatively many narcissistic and sociopathic people. They would rather eat each other alive than deeply cooperate.

There is no coherent "they" that would act to achieve some mid/long term goal together.

There is more to say about what parent wrote, but I wanted to add this aspect because I feel like it often get overlooked.

Ethical bottom for industry as a whole (there will always be niche exceptions) is typically the law. And sometimes not even that when law can't be enforced effectively or the incentives are in favor of breaking the law.

My guess is that in 10 years, it will still be 3-5 years away.

Wouldn't be surprised if in 20 years, people come to the conclusion that AGI needs quantum computing and come fusion to be feasible.

I have the impression, when women have systemic struggles people tend to believe it's the society's fault and when men have systemic struggles people tend to believe it's the individual's fault.

Will we be able mid-term to rely on LLMs not hallucinating and causing crashes? Even if the probability is low, the thought that the AI might do something crazy because it's hallucinating is terrifying, so that might be a barrier for adoption. For the same reason, will a (fully) LLM driven car ever be allowed on Western streets? I have serious doubts regarding Europe, at least.

As long as professional scammers (Fin and crypto FinTech) believe they can extract more money, Bitcoin will grow. As crypto currency is still an underregulated asset there will always be more ways to extract money in a shady way. Basically fast-forwarding all the reasons for the regulations of conventional assets.

If using the work as training data was lawful (which hasn't been always the case as we know today) I tend to agree with you, but it might depend: creating an alteration of the work might be prohibited altogether or you might need to give proper credit to the original authors and that might already be violated when you present certain output to a user. In general, the user is responsible to obey the license of the original work. The problem is that the LLM doed not know on which works its output (mostly) is based on. So in theory, no output for which copyright laws might apply should be used whatsoever.

Nah, it's fine as we are all actual human and nobody here is a giant spider.

Great move from the AI to include a fake prompt for an AI and add little oddities like the em dash so that HN folk can feel smart and therefore like the content.

AI uses lossy compression of data to generate output that is potentially a copyright violation. Photoshop doesn't recommend a (mostly) straight reproduction of existing work, but an AI potentially does.

AIs are not creative, that's anthropomorphism. They use lossy compression to save training data. Later on, the compressed data is used to generate things that are potentially copyright violations (because they are very close to the original).

Sounds to me like parent used a proper tool. It just happens to be very flexible. In general, the best tool is the one that you use and makes sense to you.