gruntled-worker

Debt is crap. Except for a few categories (taxes, liquidity, structuring, benevolence) it's a game of two parties trying to out-cheat one another.

Let Ω be the core of a normal outcome distribution and / be the payoff hockey stick. Lenders want /``Ω and aren't even willing to accept /Ω. Average borrowers want superimposed Ω and / while bad borrowers want Ω/.

The rest is a game of information asymmetry and disinformation signaling. Each party is trying to outsmart the other even if the Ω is well above break-even. Often, lenders and borrowers are agents concealing the true game from principals.

Equity is better. There is no /, and strategy considerations are reduced.

Either debt draws vultures into business, or perhaps they're going to go in anyways and that's where they land. Various kinds of debt games were codified into law to make the vulture nests bigger.

Real estate is debt central.

Yep, but here in the US if you ask a store clerk for parmesan you'll often end up with this, which is not protected other than by the plastic bottle it comes in: https://kraftnaturalcheese.com/product/grated-cheese/parmesa...

Parmesan is generic. Parmesan : Parmigiano Reggiano = sparkling wine : Champagne.

I'm not so sure 'low tech' is the backward label it used to be. The economic model that seems to be ascendant right now is moats and castles. Maybe AI can replace your doctor and lawyer, but can it replace your pecorino and prosciutto?

Too Bandwagony; Didn't Bother

It'll get rooted over the uplink/WiFi/BT long before that. Probably even more likely for non-SDVs.

> used most of the time with a motive to downplay the abilities and faculties of AI models

Exactly. We're dancing around the real argument: there's massive amounts of influencing going on (and not only about AI.)

But the compiler won't necessarily generate any code for the destructor:

https://godbolt.org/z/PMando5x4

We're not asking the model to simplify something, we're asking it to perform a task. Its subtle preferences show up as an overcomplicated path to the goal.

In some cases, there are also nuances that we don't pick up on. Here it's our preference for simplification that's showing up. We set the lossy compression factor higher than it does.

> massively overcomplicates almost all work

People with high IQ often do this IRL. There's training tension in this area. Intelligence and overcomplication correlate and are hard to extricate.

If new free projects had to have a "100% artisanal" pledge I wouldn't even consider starting one. Hand-crafting the core design is still superior. Not delegating the grunt work for copy-paste level stuff is just wasting time, though. I don't require the circuit boards in my electronics to be hand-drilled either.

We went from opt-in zones to opt-out zones. Living spaces with curtains drawn and the inside of your vehicle should really be opt-in though.

Another strategy that's often used is to cause motion then detect the resulting transmission spike. That's also defeatable of course (cache+burst, CBR, etc).

The ideal detector should incorporate multiple methods. Someone should make a site that rates these for each detection method then adds them into an overall score.

Likewise. I can't help but wonder how many people they're expecting to switch to enshittified reddit or to log in after this change. Maybe 1% will?

I'm not installing a browser plugin. I'll just take a vacation until there's an xcancel-like solution.

Exactly. And it's not only about whether a specific job is safe from AI, but whether it's safe from the effects of those that aren't safe: competition from laid off people and downward wage pressure. Then there's the backpressure into the educational pipeline.

Similar, much narrower crises were managed for manufacturing jobs during the worldwide industrialization era. The solution for those displaced by trade was retraining.

Unfortunately, at the moment we have no clue of what workers should be retrained to. Not writing.

> My lethal trifecta model warns about the risks inherent in any agent system that combines access to private data with exposure to untrusted content and a way to communicate stolen information back to an attacker.

> ChatGPT Work combines all three!

The ChatGPT Work model would actually feel safer to me if they created a privacy boundary between the container-managing agent (browser operator/VM manager/code runner/etc) and the chatbot agent. Instead of me not typing privacy-sensitive things to the chatbot to avoid having them in my history, the chatbot would keep my history private from the container agent except on a need-to-know basis. That would remove the "access to private data" from the container's trifecta.

Not perfectly safe of course, just safer. Particularly if I could review the logs between the two agents.

I'm curious and would like to see those reports. There's AI scraping for sure, but intentionally resource-consuming, increasingly-insidious AI scraping I've never actually read about.

AI scraping might be bad, but if a particular case that's actually a DDoS becomes the cause celebre against AI scraping, it will weaken the argument, not strengthen it.

There's something missing from the picture. The bots are:

- Using a terribly inefficient way to redownload the same commits as e.g. HTML diffs, possibly the most inefficient.

- Putting in tons of CPU cycles to surpass the Anubis PoC.

- Putting in other kinds of active effort like reworking access methods and buying "residential proxies" that are probably illegal in most jurisdictions.

This sounds more like escalating DDoS than AI scraping.

I wouldn't even feel comfortable cloning from it, let alone contributing. If you decide to host your project there, please mirror it somewhere sane as well.

This is one of the better posts I've seen on HN. The comments that are putting it down are not from readers that engaged it a whole lot.

Claude, please write a paper proving Dunning-Kruger is false. I'm not an expert, but you'll have no difficulty finding sources as it's clearly 100% false.

I'm not arguing that it's great. I'm arguing that the future of human work in this area will be limited to dealing with the cases when it isn't great, i.e. the pile on your desk. Choosing the best model and highest effort is the due diligence required to minimize the size of that pile.

Is there any indication that it was a mini/fast/older model, or on a low effort level? My read of the reactions above is "ugh AI", not "ugh AI on the cheap". Not a single poster mentioned model or effort choice. It seems more like the usual irritation at "AI slop".

If you just mean that the result was technically incorrect or off, that's probably true, but it doesn't affect my argument.

That's my point, we won't bother reading it. We'll let agents read it. People will eventually stop getting ticked off at this stuff.

One exception: if the model is poor or on 'low' and that leads to a crappy report. That's the equivalent of shipping performance-critical code built with -O0 in the compiler analogy.

Until ~2000, "cellphone user in public" equated with "smug asshole." We're at that icky rejection stage with AI.

Two years ago, that writeup would have been viewed as a generous gift of time to the community. Now we can't be bothered to read through it because we know where it came from, and that it's just worth $0.06 in tokens. Another reason (I think) is because we know what it portends.

In a few years, digging manually through bugs will probably be a last resort. We'll go from sneering to yawning at the reports, as another AI agent reads them and verifies the fix. Just like we ignore compiler-generated assembly code and people on their cellphones.

The Wikipedia version is simplified, but it bears mentioning that as written, it's going to be slower than the trivial version for most N's on 1983 compilers and systems. Fixed:

   register n = (count + 7) >> 3;
   switch (count - (n << 3))

Me mechanic not speak English. But he know what me mean when me say "car no go", and we best friends. So me think: why waste time, say lot word when few word do trick?

Not surprising to see the WSJ skipping the surveillance angle entirely. Aside from classic sport cars and to a lesser extent manual transmissions, I've never even heard about someone preferring old models until surveillance started rolling in.

I wish the US or EU mandated the separation of "basic driving OS" and "surveillance/infotainment/everything else OS" with the requirement that the vehicle be operable with the latter disconnected completely. It would let you avoid costly repairs when the massively overpriced spy-tablet breaks down on an old car. It would incidentally make everyone safer by not having people drive 30-year old jalopies just because they're not mobile spy stations.

California has self-driving vehicle fleets which, once municipally-owned like the older transport infrastructure eventually became, work way better than trains for almost all trip ranges up to planes. The sweet spot is when the fleet gets large enough to ban non-SDVs from urban cores, removing the need for all parking and quadrupling system throughput.

Yep. It's like rooting for a team or a rock star.

Alice is a football stats wiz. Alice is a WR Jones fan because he has an incredible 40-yd dash time and leads the league in YAC.

Bob is a WR Smith fan. Bob knows the stats are all cooked. Bob knows that if the stats weren't cooked, WR Smith would lead the league in all categories. Therefore, Bob doesn't bother with stats.