gortok

Not everyone is using baidu?

It has always been this way; but for the hundreds of years before computers that fit in the palm of your hand that have your entire life on them, it was to ensure you weren’t bringing dangerous goods or produce into the country. It was a physical search of physical items.

The issue now is that my entire life is literally on my phone.

The issue now is that there is a 100-mile ‘border search exception’ in place. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception

Now, within 100 miles of the border, should CBP choose to, they can search me without a warrant and search everything in my phone, and even retain it if they’d like. If I want to challenge that, I need tens of thousands of dollars and time.

This is the very definition of an unreasonable search; but to change that we have to change the politicians and change the judiciary. It’s up to us, but until we get it changed, we may as well consider the 4th amendment a dead letter, and that means trouble for all of us.

To avoid this becoming a “tail wags the dog” scenario, folks who have money would need to spend it. We told people for 20 years to “learn to code”. Technology is, outside of healthcare, the leading profession for upward economic mobility.

What happens when the adoption of AI destroys the middle 60% of the bell curve of programmers and technologists? How will the middle class of people spend money on products/services if they don’t have a job?

We can’t both create wealth and destroy jobs with nothing to replace them.

America has little to no manufacturing base.

Technology and finance has been its differentiator economically speaking for job creation. Both are at risk from AI adoption. Businesses have to sell to someone, and at the moment it’s not clear — if the stated goals of revenue are to be believed, how that can happen.

No, Election Day is not a paid holiday, or even a recognized holiday. Public schools are generally out (at least the ones used as voting precints) but folks have work, and typically most "in person" votes are cast after 5pm (after folks traditionally leave work).

Mail in voting has been something that the elderly, infirmed, workers, and folks in the military have done for decades. It's remarkably secure and quite auditable. The issue the right has with it is that the folks that vote by mail (the military notwithstanding) are typically democrats.

Vibe-coded projects, where the intent is to replace editing source code as the means of change with editing prompts as the means of change, is one of those situations where the intent of how the project incurs change conflicts with how socially-coded open-source projects have traditionally incurred change.

From that perspective, it makes sense to limit "vibe-coded" projects, since they don't fit in that traditional paradigm.

Now, there are big feelings around vibe-coding and a strong aversion to change, so I can imagine this is a rather jarring experience for folks that want to vibe-code and want to have the dopamine hit of sharing that with other folks in a forum that obstensibly is meant for folks to edit code together.

The part that astonishes me is that in the year of our common era two thousand twenty-six that it's not universally offensive and reviling to post an AI-generated response to another person.

If I'm reading something on the internet, I'm either reading it to learn, or I'm reading it to be persuaded. If I wanted the LLM to teach me (thank you, no), I would ask an LLM. I'm reading your website/newsletter/email because I want to hear from you.. If you can't be bothered to put your time into writing it and teaching me what you think, why should I be bothered to read it?

So how’s using Azure to power GitHub going?

Seriously. It seems like there’s an issue every other week. It would historically be normal to provide post mortems, and maybe I’ve missed them but seems like there are almost weekly issues and no follow up into the core reasons why.

This article lacks a soul and reeks of being AI-authored.

I bring it up because the more we tolerate that and the more we reward that behavior on HN, the more we will get that behavior.

First off, billionaires. Although once the Overton window shifts enough maybe we can include them?

Second, all of them.

And the idea would be to tax high net worth (HNW) individuals. Not on their salary, because part of the game is that capital is taxed less than labor, and stocks aren’t taxed until you realize a gain. So what do ultra rich folks do? They take loans against their stocks (same stocks that public sector unions use to fund their retirement pensions), and can realize just enough to pay off the loan (or roll over the loan) and they get far better interest rates on their loans than you or I do.

So we either tax them against the loans they take out against their stock, or we tax their unrealized gains at their face value, or tax those loans as income against HNW individuals.

There are several ways to ensure folks that have made billions are taxed, but right now we aren’t willing to make those policy choices to tax them — and we even give their circumstances preferential treatment, even though we’re willing to make no concessions for folks that make $30,000 a year and are fighting for their next meal.

If riches were obtained solely by pulling oneself up by their bootstraps, I would wholeheartedly agree with you. However, the behaviors or methods that got that person their riches matters, or should matter, especially if it’s unethical or illegal.

Billionaires will do anything but pay taxes.

Sauce for the goose.

Legitimately we should have had this day one for a whole host of reasons (not the least of which is the issue of inadvertently using output from generative AI as training data for Generative AI).

But bigger than that is that while there are folks that want to be able to have a machine do their textual output for them with as little energy on their part as possible, the rest of us have to deal with the impact of that call on their part.

The purpose of communicating with other humans is not utilitarian, psychologically it is the pathway to connection and forms a large basis of how we are able to get along without eradicating ourselves as a species. Using generative AI to replace that humanity seems unthinkable to me, and having markers that help us differentiate serves as a way to keep others from gaslighting us, which undermines trust and communication.

I realize as a stereotype technical folks see communication as a means to a utilitarian end, but it's so much more important than that, so much so that even this small action of watermarking generative AI output can keep untold disasters from occurring because humans didn't know other humans were using it.

The folks that would use an LLM to make their release notes are not the folks that care enough about their release notes to put any more effort in.

And practically speaking, I don’t see a LLM being able to do this. Perhaps a specialized language model trained only on “good” release notes and commits, but putting that much effort into the training data goes against the whole mantra of using an off the shelf model in the first place.

I was like “how can you tell?” And then I read the article.

I realize for folks that need to write release notes that it’s not fun, and it’s hard to write well, but using AI to do it just makes it worse.

I’m not looking to argue about your position, but I think the inciting incident in the OP shows evidence that LLMs are “dumb” even when they have the sum total of written language and code at their training disposal. In this case I would expect, for your supposition to be true, that an LLM would not mistake a code comment for an actual vulnerability.

For a long time I was anti-licensure in tech; now with the bar being lowered to next to nothing, it seems as if licensure is more important than ever — not to protect this trade (though it will do that, and that is a benefit), but because the sheer amount of irresponsibility in the usage of LLMs and “AI” in general begs for licensure and adoption of a regulatory body for software in general.

Turing-completeness is a necessary pre-requisite for being able to fulfill the requirements of a Turing machine, nothing more. In the same way that cell division is a necessary condition for life, but cell division does not mean a given life form itself is sentient.

Intelligent life-forms can generate probabilistic outputs based on inputs, but being able to generate probabilistic outputs based on inputs is not what makes us intelligent.

We can chalk this up as another example of over-exhuberance by what folks believe LLMs can accomplish vs. what they actually are.

LLM-based “AI” is able to use its vast corpus of inputs and calculate the most statistically likely output in a given situation. It is probabilistic, and when you are dealing with probabilities in a situation where certainties, not probabilities, matter, you’re going to get dinged on credibility massively when your LLM-based “AI” gets the probabilities wrong at best, or in this case, claims a line of code generates a vulnerability when it is, in fact, a code comment.

LLMs are text-prediction engines. They are not Artificial Intelligence, and shouldn’t not be treated in any form or fashion as if they possess intelligence. What bothers me about this entire situation is that presumably the folks that relied on the LLM-based “AI” to generate these vulnerabilities knew (or should have known) enough about their tool to know this would happen, but did not.

Now, we all pay the consequence, to the tune of hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars of wasted productivity from teams that have to deal with the resulting fall-out of this usage of “AI”.

A human must verify everything an LLM presents as fact. Everything. If you don’t, we all pay the price. LLMs do not remove the onus of responsibility on the human being, if anything they amplify it because LLMs can generate lots more output more quickly that needs to be verified than humans can.

But we don’t want to have to give you our email.

Having reviewed the comments I don’t see any indication of why it would be flagged for the discussion.

Makes me wonder how much use it actually gets if this is the first we’re hearing about it.

Edit: Incidentally news of the original strike was posted on HN 5 months ago and flagged, for whatever reason. Why would it be flagged? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47317587

Thanks. One glaring issue I see is that right now police can’t ask you for your password in the USA (a violation of the right against self-incrimination). They can however get a search warrant for your device and your biometrics, and wouldn’t need your password if they can gain access through your pass key.

I would love to see what you’re referencing, can you provide a link or citation to that quote?

> I think there’s a lot of social media influence from nation state competitors going on to try and slow SOTA development in the US.

This comes cross as unbelievable, and at worst a fantastical statement, as someone who lives in Northern Virginia and is effectively watching the Datacenter battle unfold from the front lines, and dealing with the local politics and electricity costs rising at a precipitous rate.

Our electricity bill has doubled. Loudoun County Board of Supervisors want to erect “Statue of Liberty” sized power transmission lines, and those that want data centers are doing their damndest to somehow claim that they’re not responsible for the rise in the cost of utilities and shouldn’t be held responsible for it.

Part of the reason people care about Datacenters now is that they’re starting to litter the landscape, take resources from local municipalities, and raise costs for everyone involved, whereas previously there were not enough of them to really move the needle as being a problem.

Folks care because their bottom line is impacted in a time when it’s already hard to make ends meet every month due to rising costs of food, gas, and utilities, not because of some unnamed boogeyman in the form of a “nation state competitor”.

I do not know how to use a Passkey in a way that won’t impede how I log in to systems. I’ve been in tech for 26 years, and I understand the Public/private key behind what a Passkey is. Here’s what I don’t understand:

I access a website through at least four different devices (my iPad, iPhone, Windows Desktop computer, and MacBook Pro) and three different browsers on each device (Brave, Firefox, Safari) , and I use LastPass. If I accidentally set up a passkey on my phone (let’s say I use Safari one day instead of my go-to, Brave), can I still log in without that passkey on other devices? Is there a way to ensure that passkey can be used on other devices? Can I add another passkey on another device? How many passkeys can I set up for a particular site/app? I have at least 6 different combination of browser/devices in use.

I don’t want to use Passkeys because I don’t the answers to those questions, and I don’t know whether each website/app that has set up Passkeys has decided the answers to those questions in the same way as the others. For now, I’m going to stick with LastPass and use Passwords; because no matter whether I lose my device or not or whether I’m on my own devices or not, I can be sure I’ll be able to get into a site/app.

Edit: One final consideration, my spouse and I share user/name passwords for some things (notably Pandora and our Amazon Prime account) since they don’t handle things like family logins well; how do both my wife and I use amazon or Pandora with passkeys? Do we each set up passkeys? How do I get her Pass if that’s not an option?

I’m going to give you just one way that a business could do just what I’m saying.

Did you know there are whole businesses that lend money through ‘receivables financing’? Basically if you have outstanding invoices, you can get the money for those invoices now, and you pay (let’s say) 15% in interest to get that money now. https://www.allianz-trade.com/en_US/insights/receivables-fin...

All else being equal, your profitability just went down by 15% taking that receivables loan; but businesses are willing to lend money at varying degrees of interest while the company that took that money still looks like they’re in great shape if you were to look at their revenue, but 2 or 3 of these sorts of advance loans can hurt a company really quickly.

The issue is that it takes a long time, if a business is engaging in shady business practices, for them to be held accountable (if they ever are), and there are lots of ways to keep a business afloat while effectively robbing Peter to pay Paul.

I’m speaking of things I have personally witnessed; but won’t go into more detail than that, for various reasons.

Public IPO as Ponzi scheme/shell game is a time-honored tradition. You can operate at a loss so long as you can get folks to bet they’ll get a return. The more people you can convince, the better you can do for yourself without being left holding the bag.

This is one of those vanity blog posts, a “look at us, we’re open” blog posts without actual openness, or rather, limited openness where it helps their image and not openness that could backfire.

Businesses don’t operate based on revenue. They operate based on profit. They operate based on operating expenses. They operate based off of free cash flow. Showing off revenue and number of accounts is showing off a tiny portion of the picture, and says nothing about the health of a business.

If you’re looking to ‘be open’ about the health of your business, then the operating costs would be shared, the amount the founders are ‘taking out’ of the business in dividends would be shared.

There are businesses that operate 20MM a year in revenue, but practically speaking are broke, because of the way the business is being run.

So for folks that don’t know better, this is a very cool thing ente is doing. For folks that run businesses and know better, this is a way to show off and ‘gain cred’ without actually having to be open about how the business operates.

One major issue that the author ignores is that while we’re all having AI analyze our conversations or when we use it instead of search, there’s a chance it will provide an “answer” that is not correct, and literally drummed up out of thin air, and not even in the source material it’s “synthesizing”.

The article takes a position that assumes hallucinations do not occur, and then posits from that stance the question as to whether we rely on AI too much. We should be taking a step back before even asking that question and focusing on the part where AI does invent answers whole-cloth.