It's a song by "The Who". Though given the controversy their lead songwriter (Pete Townshend) has been through, I personally would refrain from quoting him on the topic of kids.
291 karma · joined January 10, 2024
These people aren't satisfied with themselves having more, everyone else must have less too.
Not that I am interested in changing your mind on this. I would, though, encourage you to actually say it's "positive-sum" if that's what you believe instead of hinting and then being vague about it for some reason.
How are colorblindness and extended color perception any different from full blindness which we already addressed? These are issues of scale of perception, there is nothing subjective about them. You either process the data or not.
Can you experience sympathetic pain without having already experienced pain? I don't see any subjectivity there.
If there are multiple people that experience no pain, how are they subjectively different in their experience of no pain? Really, the more I look at it, arguing subjectivity from the null experience seems a particularly bad hill to die on. If a broken hardware bus generates a subjective experience of its own absence, then an unplugged microphone has a "subjective experience of silence."
Ultimately, I still think you are describing biomechanics, not subjective experience.
No sir, we are a little more high brow around here. Around these parts we talk about p-zombies and solipsism!
I'll bite though, do NPCs behave as if they believe they are conscious? If so, how do you know you aren't one of them?
If you give the blind man a sensor that converts color data to something he can input, and then provide inputs giving the feeling you want to portray associated with that color, you have explained it.
If you feel red is angry, all you need to do is play 400 to 484 THz into his instrument and yell at him angrily enough times for him to associate it. It doesn't seem too subjective to me.
https://waymo.com/blog/2026/02/the-waymo-world-model-a-new-f...
Or did you mean strictly in operation?
The problem with fentanyl is that it is easy to make and smuggle and we managed to leave a giant black market hole to be filled when we went ape shit about oxy, which was an objectively better situation than we are currently in with street opiates.
It's a shame we can't have nice things.
The administration is dispensing with the institutions of soft power. I don't think it's the main goal so much as a consequence of their worldview. Soft power is essentially worthless to people who have no interest in maintaining a facade of international cooperation.
Proactive prevention (like bounds checking) only "solves" the class of problem if you assume 100% developer compliance. History shows we don't get that. So while the root cause differs (math vs. probabilistic model), the failure mode is identical: we are deploying systems where the default state is unsafe.
In that sense, it is an apples-to-apples comparison of risk. Relying on perfect discipline to secure C memory is functionally as dangerous as relying on prompt engineering to secure an LLM.
While I agree that SQL injection might be the technically better analogy, not looking at LLMs as a coding platform is a mistake. That is exactly how many people use them. Literally every product with "agentic" in the title is using the LLM as a coding platform where the command layer is ambiguous.
Focusing on the precise definition of a buffer overflow feels like picking nits when the reality is that we are mixing instruction and data in the same context window.
To make the analogy concrete: We are currently running LLMs in a way that mimics a machine where code and data share the same memory (context).
What we need is the equivalent of an nx bit for the context window. We need a structural way to mark a section of tokens as "read only". Until we have that architectural separation, treating this as a simple bug to be patched is underestimating the problem.
I went to a secure coding conference a few years back and saw a presentation by someone who had written an "insecure implementation" playground of a popular framework.
I asked, "what do you do to give tips to the users of your project to come up with a secure implementation?" and got in return "We aren't here to teach people to code."
Well yeah, that's exactly what that particular conference was there for. More so I took it as "I am not confident enough to try a secure implementation of these problems".
When I first picked up an agentic coding assistant I was very interested in the process and paid way more attention to it than necessary.
Quickly, I caught myself treating it like a long compilation and getting up to get a coffee and had to self correct this behavior.
I wonder how much novelty of the tech and workflow plays into this number.
They acquired the ratio by directly querying tables through the exposed API key...
I feel publishing this moves beyond standard disclosure. It turns a bug report into a business critique. Using exfiltrated data in this way damages the cooperation between researchers and companies.
This is something computers in general have struggled with. We have 40 years of countermeasures and still have buffer overflow exploits happening.
The teacher had assigned us to pick a project to work on for 2 weeks.
I had picked replicating some basic dos application. I legitimately just wanted to know how it worked and get down to a lower level and reimplement it.
The teacher kept asserting "it already exists, pick something else". I was young and didn't really know how to explain it to her at the time and kept insisting on that project.
It turned into some big hoopla, dragging my parents into the principal where we sat and discussed options. They had no idea of what was going on. The teacher kept pushing implementing a card game, I think it was poker. I being completely unreasonable immediately latched onto, "why does it have to be gambling? Why not something useful?"
Neither I, nor my parents had anything against a poker game morally, but that really changed the tone of the conversation and we ultimately landed on a big int implementation.
She had legitimately thought it was some gotcha and was noticeably angry when I demoed it 2 weeks later. It was of course the most naive implementation imaginable but worked well beyond the expectations assigned.
I never told her I finished it in a couple hours.
Whenever I think about it, it just kills me how disfunctional that school was on so many levels. I suppose I was lucky though to have computer science classes at that age in the 90's.