bryanrasmussen

well, I suppose the same way that other people whose jobs were lost due to automation over the years were supposed to retrain for good jobs? I doubt they had the money or years to go back to college to get a livable job either.

it does seem a lot like the whole AI thing is the market staying irrational a lot longer than the naysayers can afford not to go along with it, but still, nobody can stay irrational forever.

full title: Efficient image steganography method using contourlet transform and geometric-based pixel encryption for enhanced security

there's more than two types, because the type that never throws parties can be subdivided into smaller groups of people who throw parties due to familial requirements - kids, visiting relatives from other countries and so forth.

I think generally show HN is wanted to have more technical details about what you did not just advertising what you did, but I happen to like what I see here. So a question though, on Mac how does it handle recording screens of a streaming media in browsers? Because what I want mainly for my mac is the ability to take clips of films to put into reviews and say this is the scene I am talking about, but doing that on Mac requires a lot of work arounds that annoy me.

full title: VPNs, Copyright Territoriality, and Why Borders Still Matter Online: AG Rantos’ Opinion in Anne Frank Fonds (C-788/24)

>I hope that thing about being free to mistreat AI's even if we know they are conscious since we are their gods is a joke

I'm not sure where you get that from, I mean I can sort of see if you really wanted to extract that meaning from the conclusion you could do a lot of hard work to get it, but why do the hard work? >If not, then I hardly find it surprising someone this stupid is also evil.

Gee, a new way to claim the moral high ground, and to use that claim to demonstrate intellectual superiority! How wonderful.

I don't think he believes in supernatural things, I certainly don't, but he probably believes that there exist natural things that have not been explained yet.

But evidently you feel that the root cause of sentience has been found, because you have something that mimics it in a non-biological form.

So you think that when AI is correct that it reasons as humans do? That AI is sentient, and the cause of sentience in animals and humans follow the same rules as sentience in AI because we have a process that seems similar and it is reasonable just to assume it is the same process.

If you believe that AI when it is correct is behaving as a human is when correct, then it follows that the way humans and AI fail must also be similar. When AI "hallucinates" some data that is not there and gives you a wrong answer, a statistical side effect of the same processes that make it right, do you believe this is the same way that humans create wrong answers? The same way that animals fail when they make mistakes in understanding things?

I suppose you must believe this because if not then why would you believe AI when it comes up with right answers is following the same processes humans follow when they come up with right answers?

this was written by an acquaintance of mine:

https://medium.com/luminasticity/on-sentience-ai-first-argum...

but I think it makes a reasonable argument why we shouldn't say LLMs are sentient or sapient.

>there is a problem with AI that makes the approach we took to assign consciousness to animals unworkable. We did not co-evolve with the AI, we made it. When we are sentient we do not know exactly what causes this sentience to manifest in us. When animals appear sentient we do not know what is causing it. When the AI appears sentient we can debug the AI and come up with reasonable explanations why this should be, based on how AI is constructed

I'll just note here that sure, there are people who go around thinking that LLMs are actually endowed with the capacity to reason, but generally I find the people who think this do not know what an LLM and will just use the name "ChatGPT"

>LLMs are neither smart nor stupid.

by that reasoning then neither are there smart or stupid designs, questions, answers, or any of the millions of things that were described as smart or stupid, that did not possess any brain to actually be smart or stupid long before LLMs showed up.

The analogical process implied in many common English usages means that describing an LLM as smart or stupid is perfectly reasonable.

I know that there is not one particular reason why people read novels, as I have more than one particular reason just in myself. Given just that one data point I suppose there must be many reasons why people read novels.

it's hard to understand the granparent's statement actually.

It seems to me it would make sense if it were:

it would pack more punch if ASML WAS the only go-to example...

Is that what it's supposed to be? And then, since it isn't the only go-to example it must follow that the example packs little punch.

If it is supposed to be that perhaps the person you are responding to misunderstood and thought it actually meant exactly what it said, which after all was that ASML IS the only go-to example. And thinking what it seemed to be saying was actually what was meant they responded to that.

However I think you and I agree that what was actually meant was a sarcastic observation that hey, ASML is not the only go-to example European company thus this carries a reasonable amount of punch, it was just poorly phrased.

this slop UI thing is just peak LLMs learned it by watching us, but surely the solution to slop UI cannot be this site. The adventurous unifrakturCook cursive font they chose for headings is making me throw up a bit in my mouth. It's like getting sex tips from someone who is both a virgin and suffering from Tertiary Stage syphilis at the same time!

And despite it putting me in the slop side of things I have to say that Inter is, for me at any rate, a reasonable font, especially for online usage. Maybe that's why the slop uses it.

"AI Companies Come for Mathematics" was the original title but I thought the subtitle might be of more interest on HN "The BR essays that foresaw OpenAI’s latest scandal"

In T2 "it's people against the machines fighting people who think the machines will be a net positive."

it's people (Sarah and her son John who are against the coming skynet machines) fighting people who think the machines will be a net positive (the scientist making machines) AND

it's people (Sarah and her son John and the scientist they convinced the machines are bad) fighting people who think the machines will be a net positive (the company of the scientist which they break into to destroy)

Depending on how they serve these clips (do they save them locally etc.) the point could be to take load off the internet archive.

The other point might be to provide better search capabilities than IA, also taking load off. Sometimes verifying something actually is Public Domain on IA can be work in itself, putting more work on a primary resource. In short it seems to me these people are doing a good thing.

Wasn't that Terminator 2?

I'm going to say it's how everybody already lives, because while somebody may know some of those things there is nobody who knows them all.

Not sure it's all that backhanded? They didn't say alongside Candyland, Operation, and Tic, Tac, Toe.

in the English vernacular when you deal with something you do something.

conceivably you could say humans took over 6000 years ago.

At any rate it can't be a new step in the history of evolution, as AI did not evolve in the same way as other species did and AI is not a species nor alive.

Probably not, I don't think I ever read Galen mentioning it, but then again people would get injured in the liver and recuperate better than other injuries I suppose, which makes me think it is surprising if he didn't.

Just went and checked, evidently he never said anything about it.

old American translation of Galen and Hippocrates for anyone interested, as it can be difficult to find otherwise

https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/coxe-the-writings-of-hipp...

There's really no knowing why the Greeks chose liver, or some specific Greek chose liver.

It could have been because the liver was regenerative and they were using the titan with the regenerating liver as another reference to humanity, or it could have been as someone pointed out because predators like to eat the liver first, or it could have been that you can take damage to the liver and live for hours afterwards in agony whereas the same amount of damage to the heart or lungs is apt to cause death to come much quicker.

Perhaps there are undiscovered variants out there were the eagle or a serpent or some other animal attacks his genitals, or his eyes.

But at any rate the Eagle ate his liver, it means nothing in particular, and at the same time it means every particular interpretation we can place on it.

On getting domains that are Human slop.

You anonymized domains of pre-AI sources, are there any domains that had an excessive number of "telling you the same thing three times" or other AI tells among them?

Of the percentage that was misidentified, do they come from any sources in particular?

If you get a lot of content from these sources and run against the model do they perform worse? If they do how do they perform with word choice detectors? I would expect that structural slop is related to word choice slop among humans.

Anyway these are things I would be interested in as being the point where AI slop rubs up against the human slop which it learned from.

On the point of Idea 1, I missed the point where they try to make sure the text is not in the training set, which is good, but the anonymization it mentions is I think only website anonymization, the anonymization is I think more like stuff like

"President Bush in the state of The Union last month said"

is a statement that should only have been written in a factual document during the Pre-AI era, enough of those and the AI might turn that into math that says Reference to X as being current means NOT AI where X is a range of things that nowadays can only be referred to as the past, except in fiction.

somebody named JochenMadler says below that #1 was essentially the study (for some reason their comment is dead, not sure why)

I agree it is somewhat close to the study, but we are not sure, because it is not known how much is really boring dull marketing copy. In choosing blog posts from pre-AI times I suppose you might have difficulty finding the worst examples, and might accidentally get higher quality work.

>Using the Wayback Machine, we collected 2,250 blog posts from 268 B2B company websites that were written before ChatGPT existed

Not sure what metric was used to determine these 2250 blog posts? But there are certainly a lot of ways they can select higher quality posts by accident.

on edit: evidently the Jochen from the study, maybe they thought your comment was AI written.

see I think it's like finding a paper that does certain comparative work between different kinds of apple pie that says it can determine if apple pie was made by a German, and I said for me to really trust your claims of being able to tell if the pie was made by a German these are the ways I would expect you to test on non-German people who are widely agreed to cook like German people.

Because if you are not testing on people that are supposed to be the most German-like in their cooking then your ability to find the German cooking in a city renowned for its Thai food is not that impressive.

Then in response to your first question I posit that actually it is not possible to identify if pie was made by Germans but probably relatively easy to identify if it was made by people who cook in a German manner. And maybe that is actually more beneficial.

I realize that from communicating with people over the years that things which seem crystal clear to me may seem opaque to others, but I think your analogy is somewhat unfairly structured.

Note: apologies to German cooks and their cooking, although I personally only like currywurst. But I needed something to make the analogy more like what I felt had been communicated, and you were pseudo-randomly picked.

Can you prove to me that the price of human intelligence is going up? At best it is as it always has been, intelligence in some fields is going up.

It's generally true that the rarer something is the more valuable that is, but only if there are enough potential buyers of the thing that can recognize it. If there is an ever-decreasing amount of intelligence there is probably an ever-increasing amount of stupidity - so will the stupid be smart enough to reward the intelligent with high paid positions?

What I suppose is actually that human intelligence will become more monetizable, by allowing those with it to better take advantage of their unrecognizable ability. But only if the interlocking systems of humanity do not fall apart and destroy the world due to there not being enough intelligent people left to make things work, as per various works of science fiction on the subject.

Since Maple Leaf Rag wasn't published until 1895 maybe they felt it wasn't ragtime until then? Although my understanding, which I thought was pretty conventionally agreed on, has always been that Joplin appearing at the fair was what helped make ragtime a national pop phenomenon of his time. But maybe I should reconsider that because ragtime didn't become big until after 96-97.