Very nice!
Can you share the skill for it?
8,470 karma · joined October 17, 2012
my public key: https://${username}.com/pgp
Can you share the skill for it?
My workflow hasn't changed since 2022: 1. Send some data. 2. Review response. 3. Fix response until I'm satisfied. 4. Goto 1.
Why would you behave ethically towards a company that is anything but?
The slight remorse I feel by not using official YT frontends is towards creators I enjoy watching, who I try to support via other means, if possible. But then again, any creator or business who chooses advertising as their only business model doesn't deserve my support.
Advertising is a scourge on humanity. It corrupts every medium of information by allowing sleazy middlemen to psychologically manipulate one party not just into buying products out of manufactured desire, but into thinking and behaving in ways that serve someone's agenda. It is weaponized via platforms built by adtech companies, which have played a major role in the current sociopolitical instability in the world. It is so insidious that even though it has concentrated incredible amounts of wealth into the hands of a few, most people see it as harmless because they get products and services for "free". To hell with all of that.
Doing a bait-and-switch on a percentage of your paying customers, no matter how small the percentage is, may be "viable" for the company, but it's a hostile experience for those users, and companies deserve to be called out for it.
Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?
If by "user" you mean advertisers, sure you do. Everyone else is an asset to extract as much value from as possible. You actively corrupt their experience.
The fact these companies control the web and its major platforms is one of the greatest tragedies of the modern era.
It rarely conflicts with whatever I'm doing, but I have a binding to temporarily switch it to `C-a` and back, which I almost never use.
Oh, and I've used this themepack[1] for years as well.
Actually, here's my config[2] if someone finds it useful. I can't claim ownership of it, and probably stole it from somewhere I don't remember anymore.
BTW, the author's site https://rootloops.sh/ is certainly... something. :)
[1]: https://github.com/jimeh/tmux-themepack
[2]: https://gist.github.com/imiric/9bd3e5b7fc5e1468d05abc674f42e...
Sure it is. Someone saying that the sky is purple will never be true, no matter how many times they say it. Pushing against this is how we avoid the fabricated mystique around this tech, precisely so that people don't see it as a threat.
> Knowing what you know about nuclear weapons, if you ran into the Manhattan Project scientists, would you still be cheering them on?
You're twisting my words. I never said that I support what "AI" companies are doing. I said that your claim that "AI is killing people" is hyperbolic, and that you're barking up the wrong tree.
Besides, the scientific research invested in nuclear technology has produced far more benefits for humanity than drawbacks. It's very likely that the conversation we're having now wouldn't have been possible without this research. There's an argument to be made that even nuclear weapons and their deployment in WW2 had a more positive outcome than any alternative would've had.
Similarly, the same can be said about the current generation of "AI". For all its potential dangers and harms, whether direct or indirect, it has and will continue to have many positive use cases, some of which we haven't discovered yet. Ignoring this and opposing the tech altogether is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
The solution isn't banning the tech. It's strongly regulating it, as we've done with many others. Unfortunately, governments move at glacial speeds, and some are deeply entrenched with corporations, so there's conflicts of interest galore, but that's still the most sensible approach to manage it safely.
> Can you not think of any exceptionally nasty things the US government could do with the "machines that act as if they can think for most practical purposes"?
Sure I can. Any government, organization, or individual can abuse any technology. But you haven't made the case why opposing technology itself would prevent that, versus holding those individuals accountable directly. Until then your comments come across as misplaced fear mongering.
> Do you think maybe it might be a good idea to develop that technology after you have made sure that the government serves the peoples interest?
So what do you suggest? We stop all tech R&D because governments can't be trusted? That's pure fantasy. No single government would even agree to it since technology is universal. If the US doesn't invent it, another country will. Advancing within this messy geopolitical framework is the only path forward, for better or worse.
> We're a very primitive species, and the forces involved here are genuinely new.
It's absolutely wild to me that we went from inventing flying machines to putting people on the freaking moon in the span of a human lifetime. What we've accomplished with technology in the last 500 years, let alone in the last century, is nothing short of remarkable.
But, yes, in the grand scheme of things, we're still highly primitive. What's holding us back isn't our ingenuity, but our primitive instincts and propensity towards tribalism and violence. In many ways, we're not ready for the technology we invent, which should really concern us all. At the very least our leaders should have the insight to understand this, and guide humanity on a more conservative and safe path of interacting with technology. And yet we're not collectively smart enough to put those people in charge. Bonkers.
Tangentially, this is also why I dislike the modern trend of auto-shooters and idlers. The twin-stick shooter is by far the superior control scheme for this type of game, yet for some reason people enjoy having less control and engagement. I never got the appeal.
So you can also be outraged at weapon manufacturers, which is one step closer. Or, you can skip the indirection, and be outraged specifically at people in charge of using this technology, which is my point.
I'm disgusted by this industry as much as you are, believe me. But blaming the companies that produce "AI" for people dying is misplaced. They're certainly part of the problem, but not the root cause.
> AI needs to be opposed
AI doesn't exist. It is a marketing term used by grifters to sell their snake oil.
But even if it did, it's silly to claim that any technology needs to be opposed. This one is potentially more problematic than others because it raises some difficult existential and social questions which we might not be ready to answer, but it's still ultimately on us to control how it's used. We've somehow been able to do this for nuclear weapons which can literally obliterate civilization at the press of a button, so a probabilistic pattern generator seems trivial in comparison. It's going to be bumpy, but I think we'll manage.
This might be the greatest example of cognitive dissonance I've seen in years. I can't understand how someone who's clearly highly intelligent can express this opinion, while doing the complete opposite. Does he think that everyone is a fool and that nobody will notice? Is this some form of gaslighting? Unbelievable.
Violence is not the answer, but it's easy to see how Sam's public persona would push someone to do this. There are certainly disturbed people who don't need any logical reason for violence, but maybe it would help if Sam stopped being so damn dishonest and manipulative. Even this post that is intended to gain sympathy ends up doing the opposite.
As a sidenote, I wish we would stop paying attention to these people. A probablistic pattern generator is far from the greatest technology humanity has ever invented. Get off your high horse, stop deluding people, and start working with organizations and governments to educate people in understanding and using this tech instead of hoarding power and wealth for you and your immediate circle of grifters.
> A lot of companies say they are going to change the world; we actually did.
Ugh.
Technology that can be used to kill innocent people is all around us. Would it be moral to attack knife manufacturers? Attacking one won't make the technology disappear. It has been invented, so we have to live with it.
Also, it's a stretch to say that "AI" "kills innocent people". In the hands of malicious people it can certainly do harm, but even in extreme cases, "AI" can currently only be used very indirectly to actually kill someone.
Technology itself is inert. What humans do with technology should be regulated.
IMO the fabricated concern around this tech is just part of the hype cycle. There's nothing inherently dangerous about a probabilistic pattern generator. We haven't actually invented artificial intelligence, despite of how it's marketed. What we do need to focus on is educating people to better understand this tech and use it safely, on restricting access to it so that we can mitigate abuse and avoid flooding our communication channels with garbage, and on better detection and mitigation technology to flag and filter it when it is abused. Everything else is marketing hype and isn't worth paying attention to.
This makes perfect sense considering that most LCD displays, and practically all computer displays, don't have rounded corners. This trend of rounding displays and GUI elements is purely an aesthetic choice. I also find this obnoxious since the only thing it does is rob me of a few pixels which are often useful.
But considering Apple users have accepted living without a large block of pixels dead center at the top of the screen, which they've been sold as a "feature", the rounded corners are likely even less of an issue.
I'm not sure that an infinite plane of pixels makes sense even in XR. I want to see a clear edge of where digital content begins and ends, and a rectangle is the simplest and most optimal shape for that. So I would rather have physical display-like floating rectangles, than floating text in arbitrary locations, or rounded off corners for the sake of aesthetics. I'm not opposed to a very slight rounding off of edges on certain elements, but the trend Apple is pushing is supremely ridiculous.
At its core, there's nothing wrong with conservatism. Wanting to preserve traditional cultural and social values; the nuclear family with a father and mother figure; theology as the moral backbone—all of these are reasonable ideas. But somewhere along the way this got associated with xenophobia, racism, bigotry, intolerance, hatred, and all kinds of evil shit, which goes against even the teachings of their holy scriptures. How people can hold these conflicting viewpoints is beyond me. Either they're using this ideology as an excuse for their heinous thoughts and behavior, or they're intellectually incapable of introspection and critical thinking. Maybe both.
I'm moderately left leaning, and the extreme left has also undoubtedly lost the plot, but at least that side espouses tolerance, humanism, and some ideas that I find appealing but don't consider essential to humanity, such as secularism, skepticism, liberalism, etc. There are objectionable ideas on the left as well, but these are often a reaction to the intolerance of the other side, and rarely a product of the ideology itself. I do think this is needed to a certain extent, as complete tolerance is a weakness that opportunistic people will exploit (paradox of tolerance).
So to me it's clear that one side is on the right side of history, and the other one isn't. One is trying to move us towards a better future and well-being for everyone, while the other is sabotaging this to destroy and hoard riches for a few.
I'm still unable to process that people like Trump, Putin, Orbán, et al, are able to not only be successful, but to accumulate unimaginable wealth and power. It's not only that I disagree with their politics. It's that I'm baffled by the fact that we put people like this in power, and that the majority are unable to see the harm they're doing to the world, only so that they can enrich themselves and their very close inner circle. These are signs that humanity is still held back by some deeply rooted social traits which I'm not sure we'll be able to overcome before it's too late. Part of me is also disturbed by the negative role technology is playing in all of this, yet we're all entranced by its appeal to do anything about it.
That said, I struggle with this as well, so I'm speaking more aspirationally than from a place of wisdom. :)
That said, I think your day job is more enjoyable when you see your work as a craft. It becomes less of a chore, you feel more engaged, and generally happier, which ultimately has a positive impact on your work and your colleagues. This has been my very fuzzy experience over the years, going through periods of both, but there are no definitive perspectives either way.
What the author did wrong was mishandling the negative response. If he had been open to the feedback and worked on a plan to address the concerns, the site might have stayed up. Hopefully this is a learning opportunity, as he clearly needs it.
Why does Adobe need to exfiltrate some information from my machine anyway? If I'm a customer, then they should know this when I sign into my account. They absolutely don't need this information if I'm visiting their website without logging in.
Modifying a global system file is something their software shouldn't be doing in the first place, but relying on this abuse to track me on their website is on another level of insidious behavior.
The effect of this "AI" trend is that now humans with no musical background or experience can flood the medium, making it much more difficult for anyone to make a living from it, whether they're an artist or not.
> Stop thinking that finding a flaw is a contribution. It's half of a contribution at best. The other half is "and here's how we might solve that." If you're pointing out a problem without offering a path through it, that's not contributing.
So... finding a flaw is "half" of a contribution, but it also isn't a contribution?
Critical thinking is valuable. Yes, it can sometimes be counterproductive, but it can also be steered in a productive direction.
If someone criticizes something, ask them to elaborate. Why couldn't this work? What are the exact roadblocks? Is it based on prior experience, or gut feeling? If it's based on experience, how similar is the current situation to their past experience?
Chances are that after some prodding their criticism turns out to be a non-issue, or far less of an issue than they originally thought. In either case, the discussion itself often steers the group towards a better solution, so bringing up potential concerns, even if they're invalid, is often a good exercise.
The skill is aiming for the right moment to bring it up, having a bit of tact in the delivery, and not burying your head in the sand and being defensive (or offensive). Too often people attach their ideas to their identities, which is the root cause of why design discussions can be frustrating and nonproductive.
I partly share this opinion because most branding and UIs, products that are primarily marketed as a "lifestyle", etc., are obnoxious. Yes, appearance is a factor of anything we interact with, but when using technology my primary thought is if it solves a practical problem. Not if it's broadcasting an image, or even if it's enjoyable to use. The latter is important, but often companies prioritize it over functionality, which is backwards to me.
So starting with a mostly functional product, and giving me the choice of how to style it, is appealing to me. This is why I still use RSS, custom style sheets, the CLI and simple GUI wrappers, etc.
There is an audience for this type of product, but it's of the magnitude of a rounding error, so naturally most companies don't, and likely shouldn't, focus on this segment.
This is in no way comparable to the "flow" state that programmers sometimes achieve, which is reached when the person has a clear mental model of the program, understands all relevant context and APIs, and is able to easily translate their thoughts and program requirements into functional code. The reason why interrupting someone in this state is so disruptive is because it can take quite a while to reach it again.
Working with LLMs is the complete opposite of this.
CAPTCHAs were never meant to work 100% of the time in all situations, or be the only security solution. They're meant to block lazy spammers and low-level attacks, but anyone with enough interest and resources can work around any CAPTCHA. This is certainly becoming cheaper and more accessible with the proliferation of "AI", but it doesn't mean that CAPTCHAs are inherently useless. They're part of a perpetual cat and mouse game.
Like LLMs, they rely on probabilities that certain signals may indicate suspicious behavior. Sophisticated ones like Turnstile analyze a lot of data, likely using LLMs to detect pseudorandom keyboard input as well, so they would be far more effective than your bespoke solution. They're not perfect, and can have false positives, but this is unfortunately the price everyone has to pay for services to be available to legitimate users on the modern internet.
I do share a concern that these services are given a lot of sensitive data which could potentially be abused for tracking users, advertising, etc., but there are OSS alternatives you can self-host that mitigate this.
But, as you know, you can also manage this configuration yourself, either via traditional config mgmt tools, helpers like wg-meshconf, or even plain shell scripts, if you like. I'm aware this is a very HN-Dropboxy comment, but it's really not that complex[1], and is easily manageable for a small deployment.
Another VPN tool I used before WG gained momentum was tinc, which supports mesh networking out of the box. It's even easier to configure and maintain, and supports all platforms. It does run in userspace, which should make it slower than WG, but I found the performance acceptable for my modest use cases. Highly recommended.
[1]: https://www.procustodibus.com/blog/2020/11/wireguard-point-t... (this blog is a great WG resource!)
If a technology to build airplanes quickly and cheaply existed and was made available to everyone, even to people with no aeronautical engineering experience, flying would be a much scarier ordeal than it already is.
There are good reasons for the strict safety and maintenance standards of the aviation industry. We've seen what can happen if they're not followed.
The fact that the software industry doesn't have similar guardrails is not something to celebrate. Unleashing technology that allows anyone to create software without understanding or even caring about good development practices and conventions is fundamentally a bad idea.