notepad0x90

this sounds like a reddit comment too much. why would trillions of dollars improve your quality of life. a bunch of companies get investments from a bunch of VCs who took out loans... and that means your quality of life should improve?

And what's more crap exactly? it feels like your grasping at straws to take one set of things and associate them with others. yeah, lots of terrible products out there, lots of enshittification, lots of topics of discussion there. But AI and GPUs are being used in such a diverse way it is impossible to have one opinion on it all like how you're trying to.

I'm not even disagreeing (or agreeing with you), I'm just saying that's a lazy comment to make. if these companies making profits without paying taxes, that's a voter problem (not even politics, just people being shitty voters, self not excluded).

For everyone else who might think they have a better formed opinion on this topic, I only ask that you apply the same level of passion to how the US national debt is now 120% of the GDP. The government is fighting wars and printing money, devaluing your wealth, and indebting your country to previously unseen levels. At least the banks and VCs are using their money (unless they get a bail out again), not your actual tax money, and the tax money and wealth of generations of Americans. You have a president literally stealing billions of dollars in broad day light from literally you.

Thanks, i'll have to check it out.

i think a lot of that is for government and enterprise use. even for personal computers themselves (i.e.: laptops) they're usually loss leaders, they don't turn profit. You can run a server (and many do) on laptops, but that didn't replace cloud services or server hosting. You can't store enormous amounts of data on your laptop/phone for the llm to use, or access tools the app dev wouldn't want exposed on untrusted devices.

The whole replacing people angle is just the short term use case the more ghoulish executives are thinking about. In practice, lots of lots of new use cases have been made possible by LLMs. A lot of which can be done locally. But whatever capacity you have locally, they can have more of and for cheaper, and they manage the model instead of you doing it yourself. I think you put it nicely though, their moat will be thinned, and I doubt they'll be as profitable as their funding suggests, but at the same time the demand for them won't go away either. I don't know if OpenAI and Anthropic will be viable, but I'm nearly certain Deepseek is.

The tipping point will be power usage, if a local llm can run the same workload for less power that would be a game changer. Nvidia might get decimated, but even Google and others have moved on from GPUs already, they have faster and more power efficient TPUs. Add to that network bandwidth and availability issues, their moat remains. Also consider that even for graphics capabilities, user devices just don't have a consistent spec to make things like widespread 3d graphics and webgl usage viable. Someone's cheap android phone will never run a local llm reliably,same as it won't a 3d game. even if they have a high-end iphone, network providers aren't always performant as they are in western countries, and then there are people that won't want to install your app or local software, and then browser based exposure of the capability to sites which will have similar hardware spec issues, OS instabilities, competing tabs,etc...

The problem is you have a very different understanding of what a leader is, than what i think is a more correct definition. a person hoarding information is not a leader. making decisions in a way no one else can reproduce how you made decisions, lacking transparency, making it about your ego is not leadership. matter of fact, that sort of mentality where you have an irreplacable tech lead usually results from poor leadership skills on their part, as were as their people manager's. i.e.: leaders are often actually highly replaceable. For tech lead roles, even in a 2 person team, it would be the one that has more experience, but ultimately they are responsible for their technical leadership, they own outcomes so long as their followers trust them to lead and actually follow their direction. They have to be able to for example reject PRs, but do it in a way that doesn't lost the teams' trust of their competence. If they resign tomorrow, the next guy in the line that is most experienced can take over and lead, perhaps with a different style, but they should spend much time making decisions and leading, and less time hoarding knowledge and doing actual work, making them more replaceable.

> "I have a problem, here is my recommended fix, how does that sound?"

Couldn't agree more, I've lived by this principle myself. leaders are not problem solvers though, a leader gets to reject the really good idea of someone that does come up with a seemingly great idea without letting them down harshly, and also encourage that atmosphere of continuing to suggest solutions. They also set the direction (tactically for technical leaders, and strategically for people leaders) of the team, so that the problems an IC does focus on is aligned with the leaders' priority.

If your engineers are making their own decisions, there is the problem of conflicting changes (even in Git the concept of conflict resolution exists, someone has to decide to merge the changes into main/master after resolving conflicts). There is also the problem of ultimately them spending a lot of time on something, only for that being low priority, or rejected outright because it doesn't make sense strategically, that demoralizes people and creates a terrible atmosphere. A very clear chain of command is important at work as it is on the battlefield. And just as in a battlefield, due to the clarity of that chain of command, a general being killed by the enemy does not decapitate a battalion, the person next in the chain of command takes over. Not only should leaders be replaceable by design, they're often rotated from team to team to ensure such an informal dependency on them never forms.

I think what you're describing to the most part is also the problem I outlined in my first post: The spreading of blame by supposed leaders creating an over dependency on them and credits for work they didn't contribute to much, and creation of actual leaders that end up being irreplaceable because their role wasn't formally designated or acknowledged, but assumed, they're not part of the planned structure of the chain of command.

I am interested but don't have time to read a book. However, I don't think any text can change a person's opinion that is derived from experience.

I think what they're trying to describe is the concept of a person being assigned responsibilities as a follower, and owning that responsibility to the fullest, which is a something I agree with strongly. But that isn't them "leading". Ultimately you can have only one #1 priority, if everyone is leading whose #1 priority do you follow? that's where the informal power structure forms. it has the opposite effect of no one really leading, and everyone just saying they are.

i clicked thinking he was mocking this! I hate it so much. no, dude, not everyone can be a leader. no we're not all "leaders"?!?!?

come on. this is such a dilution. it screams refusal to take responsibility for anything. diversifying responsibility so that no one is held accountable. Or a massive lack of understanding why and how naturally humans organize using a hierarchical structure.

This is a cowardly way of managing people, a leader blaming those under him/her for not also being "leaders" when they fail, that's what it seems like to me, and how I've seen this mindset abused.

I don't care if you're a two person team, one follows and the other leads. the problem is actually the opposite of what this guy describes usually. A refusal to accept hierarchy, and an immaturity resulting from not being able to understand, that leadership comes with responsibility, not just rights, as does following.

There is this massive ideological disease in corporate america that I won't rant about here, but what is needed is managers with balls (regardless of their sex) and gumption, who can say "they buck stops with me, I'm responsible for the outcome". Not everyone else because "we're all leaders" not hired consultants you hired to c.y.a., not the "lack of talent",etc..

If you're in a team where someone says "all reviews and prs go through me" and they have they seniority and experience to back that up, count yourself fortunate!

It's not secret for example that most successful open source projects are run by a BDFL (not the least of which is the Linux Kernel).

Everyone in the car can't be responsible for driving it, same as they can't for navigation. With the approach in this post, my guess is instead of driving the car, proponents will be back-seat drivers.

Two more things: everyone in a team must trust each other to do their part, that includes the leader when they lead, and team members when they fulfill their tasks. In order to lead, you have to know where and how to lead others, the problem is people are put into leadership positions in corporate america using the system of "promotion until incompetency", where if a person is competent at all they are promoted, and they end up in positions where they have the least amount of competency, earn the most, and thus are at the highest risk of elimination, and this breeds: the modern middle manager that strives to spread responsibility that comes with their position so that they can take credit for success of their team, but have plenty of blame they can throw around for failures. Even when they want to do the opposite of that in earnest, it becomes impractical.

For everyone to be a leader, the way human psychology works needs to change. what you end up with is informal hierarchy immune from accountability, transparency and scrutiny by outsiders. Good people getting frustrated and leaving your team, and those who can manipulate the informal power structure well and help with the blame spreading, succeeding and staying

Failing upwards as some call it. And then enshittification. I haven't solved the part where things are actually working in a repeating cycle and will all be good some day.

you just update them and that's it?

Usually, there are CI/CD pipelines, but also change and testing regimes of some sort. Dev/QA too before prod.

Here is my suggestion though:

- Don't use package repos on the internet, host local caches - Update your package caches twice a week, not more frequently - Unpin and update packages in dev as it makes sense, as soon as the package repos update - QA whenever your team can actually do testing - Prod, with your next release, no more frequently than 90 days

There is a reason public CVE disclosure is ballpark 90 days per ethical security research and testing norms. That's how long proper testing and release is expected to take.

If you have no specific reason to update a package, and it passes integration tests with more up to date packages, then don't update. Supply chain compromises aside, bugs have a way of creeping. Things get missed with tests. Either you take this careful approach, or you take the other extreme approach where you design everything so well and with so much costly infrastructure and people to manage it, that impact is priced into the availability and threat modeling, which almost no one can pull off except on paper (well.. I said almost...).

consider cloud spending vs on-prem before the great cloud migrations. people are spending a lot more for cloud services now.

I hear conflicting things about finances, some have a different opinion, that it won't be written down so long as more funding comes in and revenue keeps increasing. it isn't like how you take mortgage or business loan, it isn't even a loan it's an investment funded by loans. So long as the investment is still promising, what are they going to do? destroy its value by calling in trillion dollar loans?

I would love to get on this bandwagon, but I think strangely tech CEOs are spot-on on this one, it's the public that has mass-hysteria (I wouldn't say psychosis).

There have been several leaps in tech over the past few centuries, this is just sort of one. I can't find much original arguments or reasoning on either side that hasn't been made before for other tech. I think people are afraid it will replace them/jobs and they don't know what that will mean for their future, and society's future. It's also an issue with a few at the top of the pyramid controlling the tech. But it was so with petroleum, cars, even the internet (still is, handful of tech companies). There is also the quality thing, people think in a very binary way, where either AI work is perfect or it's a disaster, because it is replacing people after all. In reality, it's a sliding scale, and how well it does dictates how much work one person needs to do.

There was a time people didn't have text editing computers for example, lots of time spent writing on pen and paper, copy writers spell checking, carbon-copies being used to copy as you write,etc.. suddenly printers and text editors came. people still edited text, just more efficiently, you didn't need as many people. and with the internet, lots of different types of jobs were created.

I personally think, this is a timely rebalancing. Gen-Z has been suffering for a lack of entry level jobs, and it is getting worse because of AI.. but obviously AI has limits right? let's say we don't need software developers any more (ha!), does that mean AI can churn out perfect software each time? Alright, then who's paying AI to do that? does that mean I can create my own HN and have AI moderate it well on its own? Great, then how about something bigger, Facebook alternatives? How about more IRL things, like robotics, R&D work ,etc.. I just don't see how even if AI was dirt cheap and it replaces most of what people can do on computers, that would be a complete disaster.

I think the real issue is failure to re-architect society as time and tech changes. everything from academia, to WFH/RTO policies, labor law, housing, taxes, law,etc.. that's the issue, not AI on its own. It's the people not regulating it as they adjust and adapt to it without causing harm that are the issue. I'd love to blame tech CEOs, but they're just playing their part in capitalism. even in a communist society, the blame would be at lack of central planning and failure to regulate companies.

I'll say this though, it isn't so much they're delusional, but they don't get why people are emotional over something basic and utilitarian. to them, adaption and adjustment comes with a nice financial cushion. People tend to plan out their lives, without any cushions. i think there is mild psychosis going all around, but that isn't unusual. Even the hysteria and lack of perspective is in line with history, as well as how we continue to not learn from it.

!g is the best of both worlds.

I'll have to see Google's stats as well. I went the other way leaving DDG for google AI mode. I use ddg still if I just want it to find a site. if I want answers, I use Google.

I would say it's more than visits that count, how many people are staying in the DDG or Google home page doing things? a lot more with Google I'd think. they've succeeded in trapping me in their product, instead of navigating away, and I'm happier for it. And... i still don't get what people's problem is (quality wise that is), you don't have to use AI results right, and it's pretty obvious what the AI interaction portion of the page is? I'm sure ad blocker extensions can remove it entirely as well. DDG's quality is not just lower, it requires me clicking around to get AI assisted summary.

I just don't get it, is people's time not valuable? even if half the time the AI results are wrong, it offsets (for me - and it's more like 5%) the time I waste clicking on random sites, some of them ad-trodden (where a blocker isn't available), outdated,etc.. and I usually don't even go to the second page of the result where as the AI reviews more than the first page or two to give me a summary. I'm saving lots and lots of time, getting more done with it.

This is tech, not religion, but it feels like people are conflating the two. it's just a tool that's used to search things.

These are not situations a human would have given you a response on in the past. it's the same irrational ai phobia. we've had automated phone agents for decades. even on reddit, automod has been a thing for a long time. it's always been the case for many tech companies that unless you get someone on HN or twitter, you're out of luck. plenty of HN posts about people who've had google business accounts disabled or locked out with no explanation or recourse.

a company with a few hundred employees, constantly laying people off, can't support a free service with actual humans. why is that not obvious? if it was a regular automated script or markov chain what would change? Nothing.

Like, there are plenty of good places to direct contempt for AI that are productive. every time i read something like this, it only makes me think how many people also like me think it's silly but won't comment for fear of going against popular sentiment. AI has plenty of good use, one of them is reading natural language input and responding to simple questions.

I too have found malware plenty on Github, they have a reporting form. that's it. you don't get a human, i can't image a human replying to every true and false report. if they get to it within days I'd call that a feat. Even if a human replied to you, they'd have to use canned responses in most of these scenarios.

apologies for misunderstanding, I think you were being sarcastic and agreeing with me?

they can and do, if you're past eviction notice.

It's insane that there is literally nowhere that you can have a piece of land reserved to you without perpetually owing someone money. Like it isn't possible at all. With home ownership, you will always owe taxes, so there is no such thing as paying it off. People claim mortgage payments are fixed/stable... yeah, taxes are not. Where I live taxes are like 50% of what rent would be. And on top of that you have costly maintenance that could happen any time, and if you live anywhere prone to natural disasters or even the occasional naughty storm, you better have all kinds of insurance. You're still renting. Even if it is fully paid off.

Let's say you decide to abandon modern life and move into the woods, guess what, there are fees to camp in BLM land or in national forests even, and even then you have to move around every few weeks. Camp anywhere near a city, you're homeless scum that has no rights anymore, what's the matter, the shelter is full? participation in the system is not optional. The only actual liberty and freedom is wealth in modern society, you still have to pay but you can setup lawyers and corporations to manage that for you, and fund any life style you want anywhere without worry.

It used to be in our history, that so long as you can work a land and live off of it, and you lived in peace and got along with your neighbors, you were left in peace and to your devices.

In the name of liberty, slavery has been instituted, since you must work, get currency and exchange it, and even then you must be kicked around like a nomad, whether you are renting (rent prices increase yearly until people move out), or camping in the forest or on a mountain top. Even in medeival feudalism, you got to stay in your allotted house and land, and to the most part currency exchange wasn't required, simply a share of your crops, animals,etc... was what was expected of you.

I don't have (never will) children, I don't drive cars (and even if I did, there are road taxes when you pay for gas!), I pay a ton into medicare and social security, so why am i paying for property tax? i already pay for water/sewage separately, simply having the fire department out to help you costs thousands of dollars anyways, and i wish we could reduce the funding to cops. why would i pay property tax so much, and it is perpetual and permanent, the property owes the tax even, not the owner!! how ridiculous of a mental gymnastic.

And all of this is assuming you're not unfortunate enough to live in a HOA, in which case it is the worst possible situation, non-compliance with a random person's wishes means they can sell your house on the cheap and tell your property with no consequence. I hope there are countries where things aren't this twisted.

Even psychologically, i don't get it. you're still renting, except insurance and property taxes replace your rent, even if you pay it off fully.

Yeah, I've seen that a few times as well, but it's more like it has one reputable link it can show you but its conclusion is based on forum posts that reference it or something. But I personally treat it like any other AI, it isn't telling me facts, it's telling me it's opinionated/flawed suggestions based on search results. I'd say it's about 60% reliable at best, but that's 60% of the time where I didn't have to open multiple tabs and spend minutes on each. that 40% does waste time, but at least for my searches, it's usually things I would have tried or looked into anyways if that makes sense. It depends a lot on the topic too, like I'd never take medical advise from it, but it does give good advice, and when I do use actual search results after reviewing that, I look for anything that contradicts it to see if it's the AI that's wrong or the site.

I've had programming problems I was stuck on (APIs mostly) where it found a quirk and then a work around for it. The docs, forums, every single link I manually clicked on page after page didn't mention that. Like you said, even what it linked didn't say that. But the AI was right, I would have given up or shelved the thing if it wasn't for the AI.

That's my struggle with this thread, it is just a semi-reliable tool, but it's very useful. How can I pretend all those times it did help me a lot didn't happen?

First, did Google really declare a war? The title makes it feel click-baitey because of this exaggerated hyperbole.

I like what Google is doing, huge fan. I can't fathom why no one else is. When I search, I'm trying to find things. With what Google is doing, the AI overview gets me answers very fast. It includes links for its sources I can click on if I'm interested.

I think people are just too used to wasting hours of their lives visiting random sites and scouring for answers. If you like that experience, I don't see why you can't still have that, is it really that hard to ignore the AI overview? Or better yet, use and support DDG.

Google search's AI overview is by far my favorite AI application. The amount of tabs I don't have to open anymore to get a simple freaking answer is such a relief.

> Your work, your writing or art do matter a bit still

I'm really tired of this nonsense. If I want your art and Google doesn't show me, you have an excellent point. If I'm searching for a meme and Google just gives me that, instead of having me wander around clicking on deviantart and random sites simulating "visits" to your site, that's not me wanting your art, that's me wasting time and you mistaking that for a like.

Google owes things to different parties. Their shareholders, their employees, their users, their paying customers, etc.. People with random site are not owed a thing by Google. I don't want Google to refrain from helping me acheive my goals with their product so that some random people's desire to feel important is prioritized. Your random site is an unrelated 3rd party in this interaction.

I despise Google for so many things. They really are destroying the web with their monopoly of the browser markets. I hate what they're doing to Youtube. I think Android is total crap. I really despise them for ruining webextensions. The list goes on. I'm not their fan. But I am huge fan of Google search. I stopped using it for so many years, now I'm having to use them exclusively out of sheer necessity.

I really wish people drop every single ideology they have. Publish quality work, and things that work well. Then pick back up their ideologies and complain about how their high quality work is not getting the attention it deserves.

Honestly, I'm so weirded about this sort of stuff. Even Amazon, I hear people complain about it all the time, but I have nothing but praise for all their work (despite knowing what a villain Bezos is, and what horrible place to work both Amazon and AWS are). It's like I'm living in an alternate reality, or people are abandoning sincere and critical analysis for the sake of ideological goals. Like, I'm trying all the alternatives, I've put in lots of time and effort, and they just suck. Don't tell me to deny the evidence my eyes and ears are witnessing for your ideology. Instead tell me how I shouldn't use Google because of some ideological reason, instead of the quality being poor.

I agree, and most people agree too. Upper bound on power though, not wealth. This has been an issue for a long time. In the 30's business men tried to overthrow FDR and got a slap on the wrist for example. Something about the structure of government doesn't account for them, and expects politicians and voters alike to be noble and honorable on default.

I think they know that the military is mostly a grift in spending at times of peace. It keeps the military and benefactors happy. the defense industry employs people , which helps with support for the military.

In times of war, they expect mobilization will mean different things.

But I don't think it works that way. You can't suddenly go low tech, the mindset and the skills pipeline can't just be developed within a few months. It doesn't matter how much willpower or money you have.

The way tech and warfare is going, it's a volume game. Both sides have drones, both sides have anti-drone systems. Which side can get enough drones past defenses to cause harm? Which side can keep producing enough drone swarms and sustain enormous casualties and keep fighting?

The new supply line is the one you need to keep drones fueled up, and within line-of-sight and other comms requirement boundaries, since the other guys will be jamming, and the deeper you string from further away, the more difficult the other guys will find it to fight back, or defend.

I focused in on drones/UAV, but I think it applies to all forms of warfare today. Not just UAV, but even infantry.

The US has been at war regularly for a long time now. On one hand, it means a well trained and prepared fighting force. On the other hand, what it takes to win a war against the US has been figured out by all its serious adversaries. Undermine its soft power, alienate it from its network of allies, and attack the political will of the American public. That last bit is how Korea, Afghanistan, and now Iran were a loss for the US. It goes for any country, it's never about the superiority of technology, or arms alone.

The Manhattan project didn't win the war in the pacific theater of the second world war for example, at least not ultimately. ultimately, the fact that the japanese leadership accepted that there would be more nukes, and that american leadership, and public alike are more than willing to keep killing hundreds of thousands of civilians did. All serious enemies of the US now know that they must get the american public on their side, or get the american public to simply not care about fighting them at such high costs.

I can't imagine a good way to solve that ultimate weakness...other than to reduce costs. Instead a million dollar UAV, use a $99 kimikaze UAV, and send 10k of them at a time, constant waves of attacks that are impossible to defend. demoralize and destabilize the enemy very quickly at low cost before opinions waver.

I only said all that purely for intellectual curiosity though. War is a filthy thing. There is no realistic prospect of homeland warfare for the US. I would prefer to not be prepared for war at all. A constant state of readiness for war is inviting war. It needs to be written into law that peacetime defense spending cannot exceed more than a certain portion of the GDP to national debt ratio, and never above like 1% of revenue.

I don't know enough to disagree with this specifically, but reductionism and generalizing is its own problem. A PR stunt is far cry from a power grab. Reductionism favors addressing large trends, and large boogeymen, classes, groups, etc.. instead of doing the diligent work of finding root causes, nuanced as they might be, and addressing those.

If what you say is right, I would challenge that by still insisting the corporations can only do what governments let them. You might say they run governments behind the scenes, to which I would say, who let them? They keep influencing elections? Then elections don't seem to be working, that's the root cause perhaps? In all the major political issues, that's the trend I'm seeing, democracy failing, but then I'll challenge myself and ask why is it failing?

The old sentiment of "if it can't be fixed, it isn't a problem" seems rampant. Modern democracy itself is a fix for some other sets of problems. In the US at least, it is in theory designed to be mended and fixed. Perhaps the real cause is lack of political will power by everyone pursuing politics, to even talk about changing the way the government is architectured, altering constitutions, talking about parting ways with land and population (secession), or incorporation of some. Perhaps the population just isn't that interested in educating themselves on matters of civics, therefore how democracy works needs a rewrite at its core?

Either way, I rambled on, i know, but it's with a point i hope is obvious: the common political sentiment around billionaires, corporations, oligarchs (or similar "woke" or "DEI" dogwhistles on the right) simply don't address root causes. They're reductive by design, not accident.

You can't ever win this argument against the public and the powers that be by staking it all on "but privacy is important, don't you like privacy?".

That's what they keep reducing it to. They're also making it a false dichotomy of sorts, but in reality it's a gradient of possibilities. For example, VPNs aren't like Tor in that they can't really resist "NSA" level global wiretap monitoring in any meaningful way. Or even ISP-level data-analysis driven investigations.

It's also important to correlate any privacy protections VPNs provide, with a real-world pre-internet equivalent. paper mail for example has always been subject to Mitm by the authorities. It is possible to divulge who visited what site, and at what time, and only directly to the authorities, and make that disclosure public (after gag orders expire, if any are issued).

You can use VPNs for privacy against all sorts of creepy eyes, but your local government being considered one of those hostile actors is the threat model that's under attack here.

I would argue for example that the pre-internet equivalent would be two people chatting in the privacy of one of their homes. A bit of a stretch, but alright. But in that there must be the element that the two persons are able to identify each other positively. If one of them is harmed by the other, the victim can identify the attacker to the authorities and pursue justice. How can that be done with VPNs? If middle-actors can't snoop, then can logs on both ends positively identify the other party? Was there a common way pre-internet, where people anonymously gathered and discussed things, with capability to harm each other, but without the authorities being able to do anything about it after the fact?

If the authorities are able to gain access to a private key, or some other proof of possession of one end of the connection, can the VPN provider, the network, or the protocol disclose the identity of the source of traffic on the other end?

I'm only making these arguments to point out how nuanced the topic is. The false dichotomy of all-or-nothing for VPNs is silly. this is moving towards an outright ban of VPNs with criminal consequence, and with that all other similar tech (including Tor) and privacy measures go down the toilet. Would you rather have that or propose a nuanced compromise one jurisdiction at a time?

I get this is just PR for Mozilla though.

You can introduce canaries, and ban auto-pwning in general. that's usually banned anyways. Some challenges just can't be solved by a human in under a certain period of time.

Another idea is deep red herrings. solves that lead to more solves, on and on, except only if the previous solves were solved quickly. The effect will be that participants who solve things quickly will keep finding things to solve. they can't know that the path they're on will lead to victory, even if they artificially slow down, unless they consistently slow down just as a human would. It will eliminate the speed advantage. For the skill advantage, other than having another LLM procedurally generate challenges, I don't know of a good solution.

There are always things like captchas. or the good 'ol honor system. A person can spend only so much for things that have no financial reward in the end, only clout.

---

Alright, all that said, i think i really do have a good solution for this, as well as academic exams. Or I think I do, because it's so simple, I've been scratching my head as to why everyone isn't doing it already.

Require screen sharing/recording. LLMs can't fake that well enough. Have another LLM audit the video for mouse, key stroke, window movement and other details to see if it looks human-generated or not.

If a student has an essay assignment, have them record their screen as they research, and actually type out the whole thing. In the extreme, require anti-cheat proctoring software installed, as is done in remote examination. In an even more high-stakes and extreme scenario, have them share their face. Their eye and face movement, correlated with the screen-share, and correlated with the activity observed on the server end, should be pretty hard to beat, even in the next ~5 years of LLM advances.

These people are like a plague. Is there nowhere one can escape them?

Is everyone aware of all the unhinged beliefs their CEO and leadership has been spreading. never mind their actual practices.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/apr/21/palantir-...

I guess like Americans, Britons also have forgotten all of those who paid by their blood to keep destroy these sort of people. Just like Americans, a large number of people know this is a crazy deal, but not enough to do something about it.

Karma systems in general are opaque. The assumed or advertised behavior is never fully accurate, if it was, it would be all too easy to game.

if AI is generating text for you, why type?

but then my bank and everyone watching my payment activity (yes, it is monitored and sold, and resold many times over) will know. Can I use crypto payment? Can I purchase crypto without all the legal hassle? can I pay in cash for some credit or token i can spend online anonymously? Nah..that'd make too much sense. With news paper all I needed was a few cents to purchase one, until the payment hassle is that simple, this isn't a good suggestion.

yeah, you needed the tv's to watch you in his world, and even then humans needed to watch the feed, no AI/automated monitoring.

It isn't, all that money they're asking for is a grift, you don't need tens of billions of dollars for ethnic cleansing, poorer countries and their dictators manage with much less. It makes ethnic cleansing a more profitable endeavor for these scum, and that money will go a long way for protecting them against the sheepish democrats that will use lawyers judges to go after them.

I cant' believe this propaganda is working even on HNers!!

You know what everyone is talking about? anything but the epstien files!

Here is the google trends over 90 days, you'll see the iran war, and now gimmicks like this work:

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%203-m&q=...

One day trend:

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=epstein%20files&d...

Look at the related topics, it's this UFO nonsense!