hyperbole

I created logocode.dev for kids, but find myself playing with it occasionally - https://logocode.dev/

Ed Zitron has the economics of AI basically right. Most technologies arrive by digging an enormous financial crater, followed by a contraction period in which everyone insists the crater is actually a revolutionary new business model, before the survivors eventually buy up whatever remains.

What likely resonates is AI really does feel like a science experiment. There is clearly real value here. The problem is that the economic value has yet to catch up with the technological value. And yet the claims coming from AI companies have the unmistakable energy of a state-fair entrepreneur standing beside a suspicious knife yelling, “You have never seen anything like this before, it slices it dices...!”

I think Ed goes too far when he compares LLMs to garbage. He’s tried them, had a handful of bad experiences, and apparently decided the entire technology belongs in the round file. But much of what humans do is essentially trial and error with better PR: apply some logic, see what happens, adjust, try again, and continue until you eventually solve the problem.

If you can get an LLM to reliably do that, you can solve certain classes of problems dramatically faster.

The fact that pirated books en-mass were used to train LLMs is legally irrelevant, oh do tell - why is that? The whole point of an LLM is to train a neural network based on content - without the content the net is entirely noise. Anthropic/OpenAI, etc. do not exist without training data. Its akin to taking millions of courses online that are intended to be paid for, but never paying.

A winamp clone for os/x - interested in learning swift, and wanted a stable version of winamp for os/x - two itches scratched

I think you just described the show "Travelers"

At some point in their career the problem they're trying to solve will overwhelm even their own abilities - it just hasn't happened yet, but when it does, they'll be in for a reckoning.

All of the tooling, and processes, documentation, and code modularization that it takes us mortals to build complex things - this guy likely does in his sleep without it, until there's a problem he'll face where he can't anymore. He hasn't learned the curse of the gifted. You might have met this guy in high school - didn't need to study for his tests, aced most of his classes, then he specialized in college and ran into trouble because he never bothered to build such rigor into what he set out to achieve, it came naturally - and the longer that problem occurs the harder it becomes to learn the kinds of things that us mere mortals require.

My advice, if you can't manage him in house, manage him out

Musk bought Twitter with the same results a redneck buys a jacuzzi at the county faire - it was an expensive impulse purchase and the moment after buying it all your left with is regret

Buy thicker sole shoes, wtf

This seems very much like the episode of Veep'Boxes of lies' where they try to hide their nefarious deeds alongside the real day to day inter-workings of the vice presidents office but inundating the public with data.

That's cute, I have no idea what window the GOP is looking out of...

Code is legacy the moment it's checked in - not writing tests is the equivalent of expecting the game of telephone to go flawlessly always and forever for every corner and major case written... This type of optimism when looked up in the OED has one definition: nope

"isn't a good orator"... Given that Trump is in office that doesn't seem to be a deal breaker

that's a whole lot of blathering to say pre-optimization is the root of all evil... @example: the Intel meltdown &Spectre bug.

Or: Read: It:

The argument the speaker makes is extremely weak - 1.0 software programs are built of building blocks modules, 2.0 software is machine learning - what point is trying to be made here?

We still break problems down when solving problems that can apply machine learning. There's no single "drive the car" neural net, rather the task of driving a car has been broken down into subcomponents, sign detection, pedestrian detection/object in front of the car detection - and then there's logic that encapsulates these classifiers using them as inputs to determine how best to steer and power the cars drive wheels.

Its a bit far fetched to believe programming has fundamentally changed, at least not yet

in failsafe systems it's best not to depend on the thing you expect to fail to behave in a particular way when it... fails, redundancy is the key.

Video from 2016 showing exactly that:

https://www.tesla.com/videos/autopilot-self-driving-hardware...

If you use this to market your car without any caveats, don't be dismissal of some people who might read into that your car is capable of self-driving, when in reality its clearly absent of anything of the sort.

Tesla has likely built 80-90% of an autonomous car enough to fool those who use it into believing it can be trusted. But as with all engineering endeavors that suffer from the Pareto principal its going to take far longer to get close enough that it's better than a human whose paying attention.

Its foolish to oversell thru marketing the capabilities of AP, as it's fairly easy to conflate reliability with observed behavior.

As long as the system mimics enough of the capabilities of full autonomy and it's oversold as such customers will underestimate the risks and become victims of an unfinished product

No one wins when someone dies... I'm sure your right that Tesla employees are torn up.

My concern is that it looks like Tesla is 90% of the way there to full autonomy and the way the feature is marketing will lull even engineers who know more about how these systems work into a false sense of security and end up dying as a result -- they'll trust a system that shouldn't be trusted. There isn't a good system for detecting a lack of focus especially when it won't take more than a few milliseconds to go from good to tragic.

That's not the thrust of my point... Talking about how many people have to die to perfect autonomous vehicles is pointless, some people are willing to jump out of airplanes & they fully understand the risks.

Some number of people, N are willing to risk their lives to use autonomous vehicles they'll die as a result. It should be just as clear to person using autopilot the risks involved not misled with marketing fluff that doesn't come close to reality. Martyrs not victims

It's a deceptive to assume autopilot saves lives when it too has taken them. The number of people with access to auto pilot is far fewer to statistically determine how many more center divider deaths we might have if everyone were it's passenger.

Is the life taken by auto pilot worth less than the life taken by the aggressive driver who takes out an innocent driver? No.

I hope we eventually save lives as in net improvement in current death totals by using these technologies but the risks are not well communicated, the marketing is entirely out of sync with the risks and the "martyrs" we create thus to me look like victims.

Systems that are semi autonomous where there's some expectation of intervention work well in those scenarios, keep the car in lane markers on the highway, etc. Make sure the users hands are on the wheel but for fully autonomous even if your hands are on the wheel, how does it know your paying attention?

No one dies so someone 10 years from now can watch a full episode of the family guy unimpeded for the duration of their commute.

The human toll is irrelevant to the conversation, what's relevant is whether risks taken are being taken knowingly - you cannot market a self driving vehicle whose functionality "is 2x better than any human being" while simultaneously stating in your legal language to protect yourself: don't take your hands off the wheel - that's bs.

I don't buy this either nor should we it's not how the feature is marketed.

"The system is designed to be able to conduct short and long distance trips with no action required by the person in the driver’s seat."

The result of this statement and the functionality that matches it is it creates a re-enforced false sense of security.

Does it matter whether the driver of the model X whose auto pilot drove straight into a center divider had his hands on the wheel if the outcome of applying autopilot is drivers focus less on the road? What is the point of two drivers one machine one human? You cannot compare car auto pilot to airplane they're not even in the same league. How often does a center divider just pop up at 20k ft?

Usually machinery either augments human capabilities by enhancing them, or entirely replaces them. This union caused by both driver and car piloting the vehicle has no point especially when it's imperfect.

I'm not opposed to Tesla's sale of such functionality, sell whatever you want, but I am opposed to the marketing material selling this in a way that contradicts the legal language required to protect Tesla...

There's risks in everything you do, but don't market a car as having the hardware to do 2x your customers driving capability and then have your legal material say: * btw don't take your hands off the steering wheel... especially when there's a several minute video showing exactly that.

Tesla customers must have the ability to make informed choices in the risks they take.

While the marketing fuzz might have the tone of self driving car, I doubt the legal material in a Tesla model S as it relates to 'autopilot' has such language - its advanced steering assist and cruise control, its not an entirely autonomous car - but its marketed as an autonomous car.

Functionality that can _most_ of the time drive itself without human intervention and occasionally drives itself into a divider on the highway seems like a callous disregard for human life & how such functionality will be used.

Sure, everything is avoidable, if there's some expectation it needs to be avoided.

The whole point of autopilot is to avoid focusing on the road all of the time. So setting up circumstances under which humans perceive the functionality (autopilot) behaving as expected most of the time, then its highly likely they'll treat it as such & will succumb to a false sense of security.

My point: when a feature is life threatening your marketing fluff shouldn't deviate significantly from your legal language.

If people whose lives are scheduled in minutes have the ability to build muscle tone and stay fit so do you. Think Elon Musk I imagine he doesn't sleep much but he makes the time.

Exercise is about priorities and it's far easier to not do it and create excuses than it is to find the time.

Eating right however in the usa is perverse it's costs more to eat healthy and it's worse if you travel for work.

while a death cause graph database might be an interesting research tool, the big glaring problem in death certificates is mislabeled death ultimately caused by medical error. When a patient dies via a heart failure because they were given the wrong medication what is written on the death certificate isn't medical error its died due to heart failure. research funding is based around these statistics. Causes of death one of which is medical error doesn't rise as close to the top as it should.

http://freakonomics.com/podcast/bad-medicine-part-3-death-di...

credit freeze fees and fees related to identity protection are an extortion/a shakedown plain and simple. Companies like Equifax sell your data then charge you a fee to block access to that which they sell, if you don't your opening yourself up to identity theft from behavior that they themselves have caused.

Equifax is yet another form of financial corruption. The charge/fee incurred in freezing your credit is so close to a shakedown - this is absurd. Credit ratings of the population are a product they sell to financial firms and then they charge (read shakedown) that population for pausing the sale of that data so you the consumer can prevent irreparable credit harm. Then when they screw up and allow a leak of your data which will eventually cause irreparable harm they have the audacity to bully those they've screwed over.

Having a remote execution exploit shouldn't mean keys to the kingdom. I find it hard to believe that this company whose whole business is electronic didn't adapt it's technology stack to remedy this type of attack limiting the scope of a data leak. I wouldn't be surprised if struts has another exploit of similar magnitude, what then?

They might as well be running their business on a cluster of tomcat servers sitting atop sqlite.

Hopefully they don't recover from this - they should not have the data they posses if they cannot mitigate risk.