danlitt

> Jesus Christ. I’ve heard that Cambridge University has an open position in their school of education . . . this kind of thing would fit in very well there, no?

What a disgusting, tasteless joke.

> We solved [trivial problem]. We will surely solve [incomparably harder problem].

Based on what? This will not happen!

Not sure about multiplication, but letter counting is still constantly wrong if you can trick the LLM into not calling other tools. Obviously there are lots of mitigations on the server side to try to avoid this happening, but the underlying LLM has not got any better at this type of problem (and probably can't).

Why do you think having a free public competitor would solve the problem? Did you think about the problem at all before posting this?

Because removing public content from the internet for profit is wrong and shouldn't be allowed. One man, or one company, should not be in charge of the free speech of half a billion people.

I jailbroke my kindle and this was what the guide I followed installed. I don't know what else is available!

My experience has been "fine" - I don't use anything fancy like dictionary lookup or OCR, I just put epubs/pdfs on it and browse. I find the menu UI pretty good, it's a little unintuitive but there is a short guide that covers everything I need. There is no easy way to browse your library (there is a file browser but I don't like that). Ditto I don't find browsing through a book particularly intuitive, but it has page seeking and you can scroll through pages.

For casual reading, I think it's just fine.

>>> Hospitals have an operating margin of 2-5%. Medicare pays 50% less than private insurance.

The hospital can be paid less without reducing their margin if they can remove a cost from their balance sheet. It does not make the system cheaper overall, but it means the hospital does not have to bear those costs directly. They may not have to bear them at all, because hospitals are not the only things in the system.

They are already playing as dirty as possible.

Nazi Germany?

Perhaps this is sufficient reason to connect my KOreader to the internet for the first time...

How many leadership meetings have you been in where some profitable approach was refused on an ethical basis? (rather than the basis that behaving ethically is actually more profitable, which is totally different)

By contrast, how many conversations have you personally had with people working at a company believing a profitable action was firmly unethical, but felt forced to behave that way due to "business realities" or some other whitewashing?

Many people have strong morals, and might resist profit-maximising behaviours, but they will be outcompeted and replaced by less scrupulous people. There is actually no sharp difference between a person and a one-person-company, but: to the degree a company is really a company and not just a person, it is amoral. If you disagree, please point to a moral backstop that would prevent any company from taking immoral acts. A few exist, but they are invariably resisted by the most powerful companies. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

Which perspective? I said two things.

> ethical approaches to model development, how humans interact with AI and debate over machine consciousness

So, pseudo-philosophical mumbo jumbo. There is of course no-one responsible for the ethical framework of the company's actions, because it is a company, and therefore amoral at best and immoral at worst.

I am implying that they will subsidise the LLM inference product by increasing the prices of other products.

Not sure what you're getting at here. Hetzner has not spent 1 trillion dollars!

Hasn't that already happened?

You can't parse [X]HTML with regex. Because HTML can't be parsed by regex. Regex is not a tool that can be used to correctly parse HTML.

Excited to see the price of every other product they offer triple for no reason.

> Karpathy described it as a form of coding where you "fully give in to the vibes, embrace exponentials, and forget that the code even exists"

If that's not "turning your brain off", what is?

By that logic every appeal to the truth is a No True Scotsman fallacy.

Just one more hit. Just one more hit. We're gonna make it this time. It's going to the moon....

If we are going to be honest we should be completely honest. "We want to increase our profits and hence we choose to lay people off."

Is there any evidence of people actually using it?

> By 'business perspective,' I mean it's immoral but profitable.

So, the purest form of evil there is?

> Sometimes I wonder why people don't get as angry at Apple as they do at Microsoft.

They are indeed just as bad as each other. I think Microsoft just got unlucky and had a lot of bad-PR emails leak. If that had happened at Apple he'd probably have someone killed.

I presume you mean "the maximum physical limit of bad ethics" rather than any particular ethical standard.

Omarchy is basically just Arch with a bunch of configuration. It's not a particularly useful project, and the author is noted fascist DHH. So probably not worth your time.

I don't think there is a technocratic solution to this problem. Very rich people are using their money to DDoS the internet, for no good reason. We just need to identify these people and fine or imprison them until they stop doing it. Residential proxy providers would be a good start.

> it cost hundreds of millions of dollars to generate the weights

It cost hundreds of billions of dollars to generate the training data, they just didn't get paid.

I think the sheer magnitude of the economics have made the scales fall from a lot of people's eyes. For decades people put stuff on the internet for free on the assumption it was "not worth" anything. It turns out that as soon as that commons can be enclosed, we can marshal hundreds of dollars for every single living human, to pay for this commons to be repackaged. The money is there, and we're happy to spend it, we just won't spend it on you.