Everyone involved in this discussion understands that evolution doesn’t create things for a purpose, that it’s just the result of selection pressures. Everyone also uses the more active phrasing because it’s much more convenient. Unless you think you’re talking to someone who genuinely doesn’t understand the nature of the process, it’s not useful to be pedantic about it.
My colleagues at NIST just got a memo directing them to refer to AI as “SI” so it does seem to be filtering down to the agencies. This is a problem because “SI” is also a classification marking.
As a kid who grew up playing a DX27S and an FB-01, I once had dinner with John Chowning and Max Matthews at Max’s house. Unfortunately they served tomato aspic, so I was too busy trying to wash that down with sips of water to ask the questions about FM synthesis and optimization that I really wanted to ask. Which mostly involved which crazy tricks they had to use to pack six operator FM synthesis onto whatever ridiculously primitive DSPs they had back in those days. By that time, John had moved on to studying physical modeling synthesis, and I lost track of the field after that.
I assume the first versions will have local AI handling basic functions like balance and motion, and remote AI handling higher-level decisionmaking. I also agree that robots feel like something we should approach very cautiously, but of course we’re not.
For most of history we died of easily preventable diseases because we lacked the scientific institutions to learn how to prevent them. The fact that a percentage of the population wanted to know more is why we live so well today, but it didn’t stop many of those people from dying awfully. It wouldn’t take a lot to go back there, or at least to a civilization that would go back there the second the AIs have a major outage.
This is an article about new rules for US consumers purchasing drugs for mail delivery from Canadian pharmacies. I understand that you want to make some point about the situation for Canadian consumers, and I appreciate that. But I think you should post that to the other thread, the one that deals with that topic.
I don’t know what you’re saying, but for those confused. Starting in 2025, the de minimis exception was removed. This added delays to purchases of drugs from Canada to the US, and required consumers to pay new duties. These duties were collected by the pharmacies at order time, or at least my experience was that the pharmacies would charge your card for them. This is the common sense understanding of what I said above.
These duties were annoying but bearable. However these new changes will effectively shut down all consumer orders of drugs from Canada starting on Oct 22. So if you need these drugs to stay alive, order them right now.
PS This new rule is going to put my family’s health at risk and I’m deeply pissed about it. Having some HNer pick this moment for pedantry is incredibly on brand.
This is HN. This is a site for engineers. We’re discussing one of the largest and fastest energy buildouts in the history of humanity, larger by orders of magnitude than anything that’s come before. You can hate China if you want, but then you should be scared and worried. Minimizing the scale of what they’re doing isn’t interesting.
This is not really very impressive in context, for two reasons. First, China generated 10,400 TWh in 2025 and France generated only 547 TWh. The 95% and 50% are being applied to different numbers, and the scales here just aren’t comparable. Second, nearly all of France’s power generation was built decades ago, and China’s was built very recently - and is still expanding rapidly in both nuclear and renewables. Comparing France to China is like comparing a 1970s solar powered bungalow to a gigafactory under construction.
One of the depressing things about this is that they’ll also confidently repeat a consensus that’s in their training. This is particularly obvious when there’s been a new event just past their training cutoff, and they confidently tell you that can’t be true.
China has built and deployed nearly 1.25TW of renewable energy in five years, and they're deploying on an exponential. If you're trying to convince me this isn't impressive or relevant to our future "because they still get half their energy from coal" then you're not going to convince me of much. This is HN, not Reddit.
This attack predates OpenAI and the German wiki attack (which OpenAI confirmed was theirs) and shares agent naming conventions. So seems unlikely that someone went back in time to frame OpenAI before the HF stuff was even known publicly.
Because right now the Department of Justice is shut down for causes that the administration supports, which includes OpenAI, and none of the victims want to sue over it.
There are two phases I've seen in becoming a security engineer. The first phase is moving beyond the "I am an engineer" mindset, where the goal is to build systems that fit into a specific set of design constraints. You have to realize that systems can operate outside of those design constraints. This is shockingly hard for good engineers to learn -- I've been in rooms full of them when they have their "aha" moment.
The second phase is when engineers realize that just whacking specific vulnerabilities is not going to end bugs -- that you need to take systematic actions to close entire vulnerability classes. That's where formal verification, sandboxing, MTE etc. come from. But in practice so far, this doesn't end vulnerabilities, it just leads to a bunch of new and more exciting ones.
I want to believe that with enough of a push we can get AIs to finish all of this and we'll be security-bug free. But if we can't, at least we can get to the point where new vulnerabilities are costly again.
Prompting a system to give a history of a person’s movements (even if they’re movements “in public”) is not something that has any historical analogy. The law has slapped down the “it’s in public” argument in cases like this, see eg Baltimore’s ubiquitous aerial surveillance (they put a wide-angle lense on a surveillance plane and recorded everything, so they could rewind and search anyone’s locations.)
The question is not "does OpenAI know", it's "can OpenAI attest that the usage of their products for confidential data is not going to cause that sensitive data to become known to their models". And right now the answer I'm reading is that OpenAI can't attest to that.
I'm still waiting for someone to build a fine-tuned local "Anarchist Cookbook" LLM. We haven't seen LLMs tuned for bad purposes yet, I have to imagine someone somewhere is thinking about it.
Re: complexity. I used to find AWS unusable, then I realized I can just tell Claude Code or Codex to manage it. This makes it into an entirely different product, where "Cloudflare is easier" doesn't really matter. Now price is the only barrier.
Diffuse organizations like "Congress" or "the party" aren't what you're voting for. Unfortunately Congress really does take it on the chin for the actions of the President in midterms, because that's very recognizable and personalized, and partisan votes (or just staying home) are the only lever people have to express displeasure.
If I had the email address of every researcher in my field, I would never send a mass email to them describing my latest goofy idea. I would, however, send my latest goofy idea to a conference with those same reviewers (if I felt it was technically appropriate and correct.)
This sort of thing is really useful for helping people to understand what the purpose of scientific publication is. It's not about presenting finished products to society, it's more like a Discord where you communicate new findings with other authors. Often the reason for a communication is because you found something weird, and you want other people to know about it so they can help you confirm or rule it out as bad data. People shouldn't feel gunshy about this. (My field even has a conference for failed results, CFAIL.) I like to highlight examples of this stuff, because I see so many angry online comments when a paper turns out to be "wrong" or doesn't replicate.
DraftKings alone is estimated to do $6.5bn in revenue in 2026, and the whole US segment is close to $20bn. This is the market that Kalshi et al. are targeting, and these are huge sums of money. You can make sports betting artificially look small by comparing it to the entire equities market (but why?!), however the more reasonable standard of retail product/entertainment companies these are big and rapidly growing businesses.
Sports betting was, if not prohibited, then highly-proscribed for most of my life. You could do it in a few places like OTB, go to Vegas, or deal with an illegal bookie. People still gambled, but this made the problem orders of magnitude smaller than it is today. We did not need Sharia law or the guillotine, just an existing system of laws that were generally highly workable. It is not helpful to pretend like we need wild solutions just to achieve results we’ve already achieved and maintained for decades.
The hope of SMR is that it can be cost-effective at the same level that other factory-produced power sources are. If that's not on the table, then large-scale nuclear deployment mostly isn't going to happen.