deaux

"12 years ago PG tweeted something" is an extremely low impact data point.

> The reason why i said cc-derivative, as far as I can see, cc was the one that convinced people “it might be a good idea to dev this way”. Sure you had some lesser known harnesses around, but a year+ ago, nobody really cared.

No, you didn't care. You're substituting "I" for "everyone" here, common error.

Talk about living in a bubble. Nike is an ultraglobal brand. The people who A. saw those ads and B. considered them negatively represent maybe 0.5% of global revenue. If even that. They sure weren't running "body-positive woman" ads in Tokyo and Zagreb.

It's time you get out there and meet some people from different backgrounds rather than something filtered down to like-minded people, and hopefully realize that your frame of reference is very limited.

I now did, so they were. Sue me for having a semblance of a life outside of HN.

Lyft, DiDi, Bolt difference is about 0 in most locales. KakaoT is by definition 0. Your list is wildly outdated in the first place because half of them don't have Uber as competitor anymore because it left the market.

In the above cases where the difference is about 0, both Uber and the other app are generally the cheapest ones on the market. There tend to be other slightly more upmarket apps that cost more but get you a nicer car/service. Cabify, IM. Waymo is moving into this. Obviously I'm not super familiar with every single market but clearly neither are you, and I know the above ones.

> all that will be left, right

That assumption is wildly different from you losing your cushy software job. The large majority of US jobs are neither cushy software jobs, nor grueling manual labor.

No, that's not how the DOJ picks what to work on. They did not work on indictments of James Comey and Letitia James because someone wrote district attorneys.

Because they're part of the US regime.

Good luck setting loose a hungry tiger on Times Square and then arguing to the judge "well nobody got harmed". We'll see how it goes. That's the relevant analogy here.

Ah yes, such nutball countries who have apparently been on the cusp for 30 years. Wild definition of cusp for sure.

I wonder if this depends a lot on location? Or a Facebook thing rather than Meta-wide, though I think they don't actually let you distinguish when running ads?

Until last year I used Instagram and most of the ads I got were actually relevant. Zero scams, mostly local businesses. If I'd been visiting pages about home decoration I'd get local furniture shops and so forth. Google ads were - and are - the opposite for me, totally irrelevant and frequently scammy.

How is life at Google nowadays?

Oh you said 500, not 5000, my bad.

I'm not the person you were replying to, but yes. Let me show you the issue.

"Why is half the site blue now? I asked you to change one button."; half the site isn't blue, why would you say that? What would "half the site" even mean? Ironically even in this satire supposed to make fun of how Claude responds to prompts, it is smart enough to ignore that. A better prompt would be "Why are many parts of the site, such as the Cancel button, now also blue?", though in this case it doesn't matter as the reply would be roughly the same.

Next, Claude helpfully tells us we're dealing with a monstrosity of a codebase out of hell: "Seven components consume the token directly; another eleven reach it through aliases; three use it only in hover/focus state; and two appear to be accidental cross-role consumers" is such an insane codebase that the initial request was basically impossible to carry out.

Claude made that perfectly clear, yet the next prompt choice just ignores that fact. "Revert everything except Add to Cart. That is the whole task." It just explained why this is impossible. It had only made one change, so there is no "revert everything except X"; there's only a single change to revert, which would mean Add to Cart too would no longer be blue. The human just chose to ignore that. The other option is "I do not care about the token architecture. I do not care why it happened. Put everything back the way it was and leave ONLY the Add to cart button blue. Please.". This has the same issue; "Put everything back and _leave_ only the button blue" is an impossible ask, which it just explained to you. So if you really don't want to deal with cleaning up some of the mess, instead only adding on to it but getting your blue button, then you'd want to say "Revert the change you made, then make a new change that scopes the new blue color to only the Cancel button".

Ignoring the information it gives you, or telling it things that are incorrect, of course will lead to bad results. It's impossible not to.

Not at all.

The annoying there here isn't Claude, it's the "human". "It's not X but Y"-satire not intended.

It was annoying to be forced to send such dumb replies. Half the site isn't blue, why would I say that? What would "half the site" even mean?

Claude helpfully tells us we're dealing with a monstrosity of a codebase out of hell: "Seven components consume the token directly; another eleven reach it through aliases; three use it only in hover/focus state; and two appear to be accidental cross-role consumers" is such an insane codebase that the initial request was basically impossible to carry out.

Claude made that perfectly clear, yet the next prompt choice just ignores that fact. "Revert everything except Add to Cart. That is the whole task." this is impossible. It just explained why. You just chose to ignore that.

Sergey also needs another few billion to spend on lobbying against the billionaire taxes.

> "But they can't possibly review every ad before publishing" they say. If that's the case

It's not, it never is; it's a lie on the level of "Poland attacked first". Say, if someone was offering you $40+ billion every 3 months to solve the issue, do you think you could? It's a ridiculous question, of course you could.

> The fact that we're allowing companies to get away with bullshit like this is ludicrous to me

Hope you're not voting for any parties that don't explicitly run on a platform of stopping companies getting away with bullshit.

I'm pretty sure the Netherlands does have at least one such party, as other European countries I'm more familiar with do, no matter how small they might be.

No.

These companies have correctly figured out that it's much cheaper to buy out governments so they won't actually punish them for all the regulations they break or institute new such regulations.

That's the weird timeline we're on. Governments willingly ignoring large scale violations by large corporations who actively harm their voters they're supposed to represent.

> This is the key to the problem that I think people are missing, possibly because they kind of want to miss it. Google and the other companies hiding behind LLMs and primarily doing it because they can't operate at the scale they do, with the dedicated ecosystems to gaming them that they develop, without this hiding. They can't afford humans to review in a minute or two what scammers can generate in fractions of a second, not even at their scale.

"Alphabet, Google's parent company, reported $112.1 billion in profit for the three months ending in June."

Ah yes, they definitely can't afford it.

I genuinely cannot grasp how someone who is capable of 1. finding hackernews 2. creating an account 3. writing a coherent English comment, can come to such an absurdly wrong understanding.

Scammers generating things in fractions of a second is an incredibly well understood problem that affects every single surface of the earth that has a "submit" button. Even completely anonymous services have largely managed to solve this. Google Maps requires a verified account, meaning it's entirely solvable. It's a non-issue.

Give me $112.1 billion every 3 months and I'll solve it for you, no worries.

> How are your rights being violated?

Surveillance capitalism.

> I'm sure you have a solid and thought-out answer that justifies such a casual attitude towards violence.

The ones with a casual attitude towards violence are those executives. Facebook leadership showed an incredibly casual attitude towards the genocide in Myanmar in which their platform played a huge role. Their purchases of doomsday bunkers further help show their attitude towards violence.

What's your point? If someone murders your family in cold blood "with an ideal" and they "see themselves as good", for example because they believe your family consists of infidels, does that make a difference?

In any case, you didn't answer the question. The question is the direct consequence of your proposal. Not answering "yes" is incongruent, it's what you're advocating for; that one should do jobs that cause societal carnage, because otherwise someone worse than you might, and cause more damage. You're switching topics.

Any reasonable person would interpret the original comment as the "generic you" rather than the "second person you", but nice save.

> write an English paragraph that doesn't make me want to claw my eyes out.

LLMs are very much capable of that. Your belief in the opposite has two causes. Firstly the toupee fallacy. You don't notice LLM written text that doesn't make you claw your eyes out. Second is defaults. The huge majority of people who writes text with LLMs just uses default Claude/GPT models, and put near zero effort in making it sound human. Those models are indeed bad at it by default so they need a lot of effort to overcome it. In cases like Opus 5 it's near impossible to overcome. That doesn't generalize to "LLMs".

Right, I assume tomorrow you'll be applying for the next Nazi camp guard vacancy? After all, if you don't do it, someone with less scruples likely will.

> most scientists working on this really want to see and experience it.

We used to call these people doomsday cultists and made sure to ostracize them from society.

If I don't get accepted into art school, I might as well exterminate a few ethnicities.

Actually, yours seems worse. Bringing about "the end of all professions" sounds like you're talking about ending humanity.

Explain why? How does live being worth living binarily depend on having a cushy software job?

> You can't just commit crimes on the open internet without really hiding IPs and what not, and expect that to not come back to haunt you eventually.

Not sure what you're talking about, the current AI boom is entirely based on committing crimes on the open internet without really hiding IPs and what not.

So is much of big tech in general.

This too isn't true. Most of the services you listed only operate in one (or at most a small few) countries. I know for a fact that in some of them, Uber is not the highest price. Instead, in some of them, Uber and the ones you listed are tied for the lowest price, with other local apps being more expensive.

You're misinforming here, giving bold statements based on not spending enough time in some of these countries, not knowing the local market well enough.