sangnoir

Tim is not Phil...

How is it logic defying? It seems straightforward to apply on any compositional entity: I could make one with "Apple Executive", "Tim", "Phill", and "Eddy"

> If it's the first, somebody should tell them the slop's already up to their navels and they probably shouldn't be helping people generate more of it.

One would imagine Meta can readily quantify how much AI-generated content is consumed across its properties.

Meta's play is simple: more engagement means more money for Meta, and this can be done by "slop" as you called it, or alternatively expanding the audience of high quality human-generated content, say via translation. A funny video in Albanian is probably still very funny after being translated to English.

> I'm sorry but what are these guys working on that's taking precedence over this?

Their day-jobs at other various Musk enterprises.

I mentioned broken peripherals in the comments you responded to. You're moving goals.

>> which distro(es) would be available?

> None

Me: there's Ubuntu 24.10 build specifically for Snapdragon X Elite ARM computers

You: that distro is buggy

Me: but it exists, because Qualcomm mainlined code to Linus' kernel tree.

They could just hack their devices remotely, or physically break into his residence. I suspect a serial leaker will lack neither the discipline to not copy data onto personal devices, nor the opsec to withstand a motivated nation-state, since a lot of the work seems rushed, and is off playbook.

An experimental build of Ubuntu 24.10 for Snapdragon X Elite ARM computers is available[1] today from Canonical. It's denoted as "Experimental" because its very bleeding edge, and under active development. It boots and is installable, but is not ready for casual users yet.

1. https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/ubuntu-24-10-concept-snapdrag...

> None. I was down-voted during the launch for saying that there won't be any meaningful support from Qualcomm and 6 months later

You were - and are - wrong. Qualcomm mainlined enough drivers for in the same window (past 6 months) so one can boot and install the latest Linux kernel on several Snapdragon X laptops from different OEMs. There are people running Fedora and an Ubuntu Experimental[1] builds. Its still rough, depending on ones device tree, the peripherals line microphone, webcam, and/or fan control may not work right now, but it's a platform that's actively being developed for.

1. https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/ubuntu-24-10-concept-snapdrag...

Strong vs weak sense of obligation to the collective (the people around you).

That sounds about right - the medium is the message. If you can't stand the clunky-but-working, decades-old, patch process, you probably won't stand the clunky-but-working decades-old code.

I'm grateful the kernel still supports MIPS, which means an old appliance of mine still works perfectly fine and is upgradable. I would be cery sad if someone were to rip-out support of an old MIPS arch, just because it's old and unwieldy

> Robotics will be solved pretty soon by 10x reasoners if this development curve continues

Don't get high on your own (industry's) supply. This foward-looking BS is targeted at clueless investors, Level 5 self-driving cars have been a "few years away" for almost 2 decades now, and here we are, still having to deal with ADAS like cavemen, and looking back at the trail of dead companies that believed they could solve self-driving.

> Call me a doomsday prepper, but frankly I haven't heard a compelling argument against this line of thinking that is actually in line with the absurd development curve.

Are the current economics viable indefinitely? I think not. This AI investment exuberance will be curbed as soon as investors start demanding returns, and we've already seen harbingers of that (the Deep Seek market scare). What appears to be a quadratic growth curve inevitably turns out to be sigmoid.

Right now, the Hype train is at maximum speed and seems unstoppable. Despite the early hype, the Internet didn't replace colleges or brick and mortar stores[1], iPads didn't kill computers[2], and AI won't replace software engineers. This is not to say there will be no impact, but it's being oversold.

1. Khan academy and Amazon notwithstanding. But physical retail stores are still here and doing okay, and have adjusted to leveraging the new paradigm.

2. Leading up to peak iPad, it was believable that the iPad would kill PCs - it was an unstoppable juggernaut lifting Apple profits to record heights https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-03-21/ipad-the-...

That only works if the edit buffer is blank or only has commented out lines. In other cases, such as when you're trying to cancel a `git commit --amend` that loads up the last commit message in your buffer, :q! will not cancel the commit, but :cq will.

That's just part of the game. Sometimes you're ahead, sometimes you're behind, but there's never a decisive winner.

> So if Cloudflare has access to other data that can positively identify bots

They do not - not definitively [1]. This cat-and-mouse game is stochastic at higher levels, with bots doing their best to blend in with regular traffic, and the defense trying to pick up signals barely above the noise floor. There are diminishing returns to battling bots that are indistinguishable from regular users.

1. A few weeks ago, the HN frontpage had a browser-based project that claimed to be undetectable

I see Chinese nationals in US labs thinking a return to China is a more attractive now than it was a few weeks ago. Chinese institutions should absolutely capitalize on this.

Everything is securities fraud - they'd likely be sued by shareholders. Some individuals and institutions are picky about the symbols in their portfolio for religious or moral reasons, and would not appreciate being deceived into investing in a company they consider engaging in "harmful" or morally objectionable activities.

It's not a luxury belief for a multinational tech company that intends to remain in business in countries that are not allied to the US. Being seen as independent of the military has a dollar value, but that may be smaller than value of defense contracts Google hopes to get.

Plenty of US companies not named Google haven't had qualms about weapons development in decades. It's not about US vs China/Russia, it's about Google's culture.

Additionally, the US has been vociferous about limiting access to foreign tech companies with "military links" in China, so perhaps Google should be placed in that category by all non-Five-Eyes countries.

You're just highlighting a different aspect of parent's concern: there shouldn't be special-casing for military aircraft in shared airspace.

Boosting their personal brand, perhaps?

> But since LLMs don’t really act deterministically, I feel the need to double check their output.

I feel the same

> That’s very painful for me. At that point I’d rather just write the code once, correctly.

I use AI tools augmentatively, and it's not painful for me, perhaps slightly inconvenient. But for boiler-plate-heavy code like unit tests or easily verifiable refactors[1], adjusting AI-authored code on a per-commit basis is still faster than me writing all the code.

1. Like switching between unit-test frameworks

> The whole “chat as UX” metaphor is a cul-de-sac that I’m sure we’ll back out of sooner or later.

Only when someone discovers another paradigm that matches or exceeds the effectiveness of LLMs without being a language model.

> Narrative is a famously flawed way to communicate or record the real world.

...and yet with it's flaws, it's the most flexible in conveying meaning. A Ted Chiang interview was on the HN frontpage a few days ago, in it, he mentions that humans created multiple precise, unambiguous communication modes like equations used in mathematical papers and proofs. But those same papers are not 100% equations, the mathematicians have to fall back to flawed language to describe and provide context because those formal languages only capture a smaller range of human thought compared to natural language.

This is not to say chat has the best ergonomics for development - it's not, but one has to remember that the tools are based on Large Language Models whose one-trick is manipulating language. Better ergonomics would likely come from models trained or fine-tuned on AST-tokens and diffs. They'd still need to modulate on language (understanding requirements, hints, variable names,and authoring comments, commits and/or PRs).

> if the “deep state” was a real thing

If it wasn't, he made it real. Elon is the deep state. An unelected individual who has set up a no-oversight machinery with hands on the levers of state power, and using them to his own ends, independent of public benefit. Every accusation is a confession.

> $0.01 per action that can potentially save you tens of minutes to hours of work sounds like a pretty good deal to me

Save tens of hours in one commit?! No model is this good yet[1] - especially not Aider with its recommended models. I fully agree with parent - current SoTA models require lots of handholding in the domains I care about, and the AI chat/pairing setup works much better compared to the AI creating entire commits/PRs before a human gets to look at it.

1. If they were, Zuckerberg would have already announced another round of layoffs.

> [...] but he may be a little more convinced about physical ones.

He thought raking forests would prevent fires. His off-the-cuff solution to physical barriers would be long hoses and a bunch of water pumps.

> Humans are not deterministic and can break for many reasons.

Yes. Humans can also self-evaluate about their state, and have culpability. It not surprising that non-humans are held to a different standard.

> How realistic is it to have ATC performed by an AI?

Not very. For safety-critical systems, you probably want something deterministic, and doesn't break when faced with novel situations.

Solvers are probably a better solution than ML approaches, but they can't capture every possible constraint, such as airplane that can only make left-handed turns because of equipment failure.

The Aviation safety industry considers near-misses as an indicator of danger, and worth reviewing. A near-miss followed by a crash is maximally damning of the system.