icoder

I've flagged an AI-generated add once that promoted a small device that could cool a hot room (many degrees celcius lower, very quickly, for very little energy and very little money and without external components), defying the laws of thermodynamics.

They said they investigated it and concluded it did not break any rules and no actions where taken.

What I don't understand is that on one hand we read 'what they charge is much less than it costs them' and on the other hand this thread seems to suggest that 'what they charge is more than it would cost me'.

Wouldn't be surprised if a dollar per entry already made a whole lot of difference.

I think that's the problem, or at least a problem, and a growing one.

This is me in the evening working on a side project.

Yeah I think this basically answers this entire sub-thread

And I bet the impact of your review work on their development into medior/senior goes towards 0.

I recognize this discrepancy where review effort becomes more than the coding itself. I don't think I could sustain that for long.

I picked up miniature painting as a hobby around Christmas icm 3D printing with the idea of building a Christmas village from scratch. It's always fascinating what long and winded funnels every new hobby brings. In this case brushes, synthetic vs sabel, usage, care.

Especially given how fast things progress, timeline and performance are a tradeoff where I'd say swaying things in favour of the latter is not per definition net positive.

Totally agree if the AI or search results are a (relatively) direct answer to the question.

But what if the AI is used to build up a(n otherwise) genuine human response, like: 'Perhaps the reason behind this is such-and-such, (a quick google)|($AI) suggests that indeed it is common for blah to be blah, so...'

What may be added is that some people have a hard time reading words by their 'total shape'. I can imagine that for them, the difference between pattern matching symbols and strings of letters is even more profound.

Comparable to what I read someone say about AI the other day: we're living in the small sliver of history where smart-glasses with cameras are technically feasible yet are still (kind of) detectable.

My mom has hearing aids, I only get all the technical info through her, so it's a bit blurry, but she complained about very unpleasant scratchy noises, for instance when my dad was watching videos on his iPad (for himself) elsewhere in the room. Settings were changed but now she has a harder time understanding us. We don't have to scream but if we don't speak 'clearly', she misses a lot, especially when we are with a larger group (say 10 people at a dinner). She says she has some friends that she understands very clearly, in contrast to others (admittedly, me and one of my sisters are not the best examples of how to speak crystal clear).

Perhaps this is just the limit of her hearing capacity. Or do you think she should not settle for this and push for something better?

It's not just you. The generated stuff - in my opinion - doesn't make any sense at all, with regard to structure or meaning. Unless, perhaps, the aim was to generate some kind of badly designed Ikea store.

I used to be in (molecular biology) research. At some point my supervisors were already working towards a paper in their mind, while I was still doubting (the statistical significance of) my findings.

In the end I left my Phd track before actually finishing it. My conclusion is that I like research(ing stuff) as a verb, but I don't like research as an institute.

This reminds me of my interactions lately with ChatGPT where I gave into its repeated offer to draw me an electronics diagram. The result was absolute garbage. During the subsequent conversation it kept offering to include any new insights into the diagram, entirely oblivious to its own incompetence.

I can understand how/that this works, but it still feels like a 'hack' to me. It still feels like the LLM's themselves are plateauing but the applications get better by running the LLM's deeper, longer, wider (and by adding 'non ai' tooling/logic at the edges).

But maybe that's simply the solution, like the solution to original neural nets was (perhaps too simply put) to wait for exponentially better/faster hardware.

So Long, and Thanks for All the Krill

This nicely describes where we're at with LLM's as I see it: they are 'fancy' enough to be able to write code yet at the same time they can't be trusted to do stuff which can be solved with a simple hook.

I feel that currently improvement mostly comes from slapping what to me feels like workarounds on top of something that very well may be a local maximum.

Here in the Netherlands the impact of Nitrogen coming from cattle excretions (mostly through ammonia I believe) is paralizing the entire country (due to the impact on the environment, it's now blocking the building of - very much needed - housing. So there could be a win/win/win/win there.

Reminds me of when I was developing an application 'in' Facebook (when it was mostly friends but with adds for addictive games in the sidebar)

What inactions? Apart from creating safe conditions beforehand (but perhaps that is your point), once my kid is asleep there's not much more I can do? Most of that time I'm sleeping myself.

Theoretically that should swiftly be reflected in their trust level. But maybe I'm too optimistic.

I have nothing intrinsically against people that 'will click absolutely anything for a free iPad' but I wouldn't mind removing them from my online interactions if that also removes bots, trolls, spamners and propaganda.

Interestingly, as I've begun to realise the ease by which a State's trust can sway has actually increased my believe that this should come from 'below'. I think a trust network between people (of different countries) can be much more resilient.

Yeah building something like this is not a weekend project, getting enough traction for it to make sense is another orders of magnitude beyond that.

I like the idea of one's trust to leverage that of those around them. This may make it more feasible to ask some 'effort' for the trust gain (as a means to discourage duplicate 'personas' for a single human), as that can ripple outward.

I'm sometimes thinking about account verification that requires work/effort over time, could be something fun even, so that it becomes a lot harder to verify a whole army of them. We don't need identification per se, just being human and (somewhat) unique.

See also my other comment on the same parent wrt network of trust. That could perhaps vet out spammers and trolls. On one and it seems far fetched and a quite underdeveloped idea, on the other hand, social interaction (including discussions like these) as we know it is in serious danger.

I'm more and more convinced of an old idea that seems to become more relevant over time: to somehow form a network of trust between humans so that I know that your account is trusted by a person (you) that is trusted by a person (I don't know) [...] that is trusted by a person (that I do know) that is trusted by me.

Lots of issues there to solve, privacy being one (the links don't have to be known to the users, but in a naive approach they are there on the server).

Paths of distrust could be added as negative weight, so I can distrust people directly or indirectly (based on the accounts that they trust) and that lowers the trust value of the chain(s) that link me to them.

Because it's a network, it can adjust itself to people trying to game the system, but it remains a question to how robust it will be.

Cool! I'm working on something comparable, but with the audio stored on a single SD and playback triggered using an RFID tag that we can than stick on wooden figures made by my GF (or anything 3D printed).

I'm still iterating over hardware, realising Pi Zero is a bit of overkill, using too many NiMH batteries in series may actually break those batteries, that ESP8266 has much less GPIO's available than the module design suggests, among other lessons learned.

My current approach is Pi Pico (ESP32 was the alternative) with a DfPlayer Mini and a 32GB SD card.

The DfPlayer isn't too keen on running on 3v3 from cheaper LDO's (which are on the modules I'm using) so my current approach uses a small power bank. That just offloads the hard part (for me) of battery management to the professionals. This weekend I added a few resistors and a transistor to draw extra power (0.5secs every 20 seconds) to keep the power bank awake.

But I have different LDO's and an ESP32 coming in, so it's not fully decided yet. Will for sure scan this thread and OP's article for more ideas!

The IDFV already supports tracking user across apps, as long as they are from the same vendor. It resets when apps from a vendor are removed from a device. Not sure if the user can reset it by themselves, but the vendor could then always tie things together using another self-generated identifier stored on the device, as long as any of its apps are on it, which boils down to the same.

I think the approach you describe allows roughly the same, except perhaps doing so without (or with different) permissions, and allowing to do this between vendors (that must agree upon this upfront).

Well in your defence, the HN title does say 'available to all users'