johnecheck

It's X, not twitter. That system is directly controlled by a single man for his own benefit; we should use the name that reminds us of that.

He openly promotes himself and those that pay him. If you think Musk doesn't have an admin dashboard where he can demote accounts he dislikes and promote his friends, I have some... unkind words for you.

It's about control. Control over your information intake is partial control over you.

We can do so much better than ceding that power to the highest bidder.

We're not sinister, we just have these metrics that we prioritize at all costs, up to and including child well-being!

> There are trust issues all the way down.

Nonetheless, we must somehow build trust in others and denounce the undeserving. Some humans deserve trust. Will these AI models?

That's unbelievably stupid. But then again, so is not renting out the space at the market rate so you can pretend it's worth more than it really is. So... good luck, I guess?

If someone generates a massive essay with AI, you don't have a moral obligation to do anything.

If you want to argue that the reasoning in the essay is incorrect, I do expect you to refute the reasoning instead of merely attacking the source.

> Even if the conclusion is broadly correct, that doesn't mean the reasoning used to get there is consistent.

This is the conclusion of a reply that focused entirely on critiquing OP's style/AI use instead of their reasoning? Ironic.

I strongly suspect it's the latter, though someone please chime in if I'm wrong.

Even so, this is a real advancement. It's impressive to see existing techniques combined to meaningfully improve on SOTA image generation.

It's funny, this release comes right after the Gemini 3 release that coincided with day 1 of Microsoft's Ignite conference.

Are you religious? If not, you should assume that your cognition is a product of your body, a magnificent machine.

I don't think LLMs are sapient, but your argument implies that creativity is something unique to humans and therefore no machine can ever have it. If the human body IS a machine, this is a contradiction.

Now, there's a very reasonable argument to be made concerning the purpose of copyright law, but "machines can't be creative" isn't it.

Time to invent a type of plastic that's poisonous to these bacteria!

> Is it harmful to humans?

> Not at all! You can definitely trust that my company has studied this in depth. I'm sure it isn't going to make it into everyone's bloodstreams before we learn it's actually terrible.

Dart/Flutter, custom engine. I've been very satisfied with it; does everything I need for a 2d game. Once it can natively use shaders/GPU on web it'll be perfect.

This seems like the time to mention my unreleased board/video game, Star Gambit!

It's a turn-based abstract space fleet battle coming to your browser in 2026. It's already playable over the internet w/ time controls and ratings. If that interests you, join the discord for updates and playtest invites!

https://stargamb.it

https://discord.gg/f3MUSkJjFx

You're right, Bluesky moderation is centralized. Unless content is served p2p, some moderation has to be centralized. At the end of the day, there's a server serving content and that server operator is legally obligated to remove illegal material.

Hopefully, atproto + community will provide alternatives for moderation services. Work is being done on this, we'll see what we end up getting. I feel that a competitive ecosystem of moderation services is probably the best answer we can hope for to that inherently messy problem.

It's all about trust. How do we help machines (and humans) know what to trust?

Imagine if they later update these links to actually phish people. That'd be pretty funny.

This is Hacker News, none of us are normal :p

I think it's really that highly motivated individuals will power through garbage UX that regular users won't. Upsides like decentralization are abstract, UX is concrete. You need to get the UX right to give your real benefits a chance to shine.

No mention of atproto. Obviously Bluesky is nothing to write home about, but do you see some reason why the atproto couldn't be the foundation for something more interesting?

I've always felt that the browser vendor + CA model was bad but this is next level embarrassing. How is the very root of trust in the internet so... untrustworthy?

> There is no way to promote facts or what people think are facts.

There is no way with existing platforms and algorithms. We need systems that actually promote the truth. Imagine if claims (posts) you see come with a score* that correlates with whether the claim is true or false. Such a platform could help the world, assuming the scores are good.

How to calculate these scores is naturally the crux of the problem. There's infinite ways to do it; I call these algorithms truth heuristics. These heuristics would consider various inputs like user-created scores and credentials to give you a better estimate of truth than going with your gut.

Users clearly need algorithmic selection and personalized scores. A one-size-fits-all solution sounds like a Ministry of Truth to me.

* I suggest ℝ on [-1,1].

-1 : Certainly false

-0.5 : Probably false

0 : Uncertain

0.5 : Probably true

1 : Certainly true

It will of they can actually make it think better than we do. Whether they ever will is hard to say, but it feels pretty clear that throwing more money at LLMs isn't going to get us there.

I read the comment you're responding to as suggesting a way to resolve the conflicts layered atop the CRDT, not as a component of the CRDT itself. You're very right that LLMs are the wrong tool for CRDT implementation, but using them to generate conflict resolutions seems worth exploring.

1 is true, but this applies to all websites you visit (and their ads, supply chain, etc). Drawing a security boundary here means never executing attacker-controlled Javascript. Good luck!

2 is also true. But also, a zero day like that is a massive deal. That's the kind of exploit you can probably sell to some 3 letter agency for a bag. Worry about this if you're an extremely high-value target, the rest of us can sleep easy.

It might be nice if our universe conformed to our intuitions about time steadily marching forward at the same rate everywhere.

Einstein just had to come along and screw everything up.

Causality is the key.

Conflict-free is right in the name, layering conflicts on top of it would be blasphemy :p

LLMs could be good at this, but the default should be suggestions rather than automatic resolution. Users can turn on YOLO mode if their domain is non-critical or they trust the LLM to get it right.

Wow. That's... impressively bad.

While pretty egregious, this is sadly common. I'm certain there's a dozen other massive companies making similar mistakes.

NO! CLEARLY THE ENTIRE CORPUS OF HUMAN LITERATURE AND THE INTERNET DOESN'T CONTAIN ENOUGH INFORMATION TO EDUCATE AN EXPERT!!!! I JUST NEED ANOTHER BILLION DOLLARS PLS PLS PLS I PROMISE THE SCALING LAWS ARE ACTUALLY LAWS THIS TIME

Actually, yes. In the US, the 'actual malice' standard only applies to 'public figures'. Outside of that, damaging a person's reputation with false statements is defamation regardless of whether it was due to negligence or malice.

From earlier today:

Me: How do I change the language settings on YouTube?

Claude: Scroll to the bottom of the page and click the language button on the footer.

Me: YouTube pages scroll infinitely.

Claude: Sorry! Just click on the footer without scrolling, or navigate to a page where you can scroll to the bottom like a video.

(Videos pages also scroll indefinitely through comments)

Me: There is no footer, you're just making shit up

Claude: [finally uses a search engine to find the right answer]

Indeed. I can't take an epistemology project seriously if it has no humility.

Building a perfectly accurate model of the world isn't possible. We need to create tools that make it easier for regular people to build more accurate models, not delude ourselves with dreams of perfection.