uncomputation

Good for Japan. They are being forward thinking and protective over their existing job supply. America is a great example of what happens with too much offshoring and lax immigration policies. Especially with the effects of AI, there are no longer enough jobs to go around.

Hmm… training data siphon?

Really embarrassing to see Carmack fall so low and have such little respect for the art of programming he once advanced. Unlike swords and martial arts in combat, code is still needed. It’s not like there’s some new medium that doesn’t use code at all. It’s just a question of who is writing that code: a human or a statistical model. Guns superseded swords, cars superseded horses, but coding agents haven’t superseded code itself. A better analogy would be if, instead of guns, we ended up using advanced kung-fu fighting robots. Which would actually be sick…

> I like restrictions of another sort more. Namely, restricting the use of AI in corporate environments so that it does not destroy the economy as it advances.

Careful, you’re making too much sense. The big model providers would much rather the ball be in their court. “Deceleration” meaning Anthropic and OpenAI offer less capabilities for more money in service of “protecting humanity from extinction” rather than penny pinching. A lot of “AI research” coming out of these “labs” (increasingly enterprise) seems to be more driven by a cost benefit analysis from suits rather than genuine contributions to the field. I think the last true innovation was the idea of using doom and ending the human race as a marketing gimmick, which strangely seems to have worked in setting the narrative and captivating the sci-fi imaginations of journalists and techies alike.

How is SwiftUI dated? It uses a declarative model. I don’t see UI framework paradigms shifting that much.

So what took an autonomous agentic system using a significantly more powerful internal model, totaling multi-millions of dollars of compute in training and inference, was likely to already be solved by a team of a few humans with an orders of magnitude smaller LLM budget, had OpenAI not been foaming at the mouth to jump the shark and claim “AI solves Millenium Problem.”

Also it sounds like the human research effort spanned weeks if not years from Tristan’s statement so it is extremely likely the work and prompts of these human researchers was used in the OpenAI knock-off.

Maybe I am pessimistic but it seems no one cares about climate change these days. All of Los Angeles is sweltering now. Just pointing fingers and dropping individual names while the world continues to heat slowly. Any suggestions to get involved are welcome, I don’t want to be just a complainer.

Clickbait title and OP didn’t disclose this is his site. Flagged.

> what are billions of people doing on Facebook if it's harmful? I don't know.

This is extremely naive and akin to asking "why do people drink if it’s bad for you then??" Popular != healthy

It's the television and the Internet. It's that simple.

There’s a more generalizable work on this recently for those expecting more. https://github.com/leochlon/hallbayes

A lot of pearl clutching over extremely average marketing material.

“Bans ByteDance” might be better wording.

Wow, this might be one of the worst PR decisions in recent history.

> they don't refute that they did betray it

They do. They say:

> Elon understood the mission did not imply open-sourcing AGI. As Ilya told Elon: “As we get closer to building AI, it will make sense to start being less open. The Open in openAI means that everyone should benefit from the fruits of AI after its built, but it's totally OK to not share the science...”

Whether you agree with this is a different matter but they do state that they did not betray their mission in their eyes.

Can the title be updated to include the “Meet”? Otherwise it’s a bit ominous…

The reporting on this study is conflating sentiment with plot structure, which misrepresents the study.

See for example, Frankenstein. The sentiment rises slightly during the Creature’s narration to Victor of his circumstances - likely the narration of the French family he was “living”/stowing away with - but that’s certainly not a “rise” in the sense Oedipus rises to noble status. It’s hard to interpret Frankenstein as anything other than the protagonist’s consistent and tragic downfall (riches to rags in this analysis).

Not sure if that’s fundamentally a problem trying to extrapolate plot beats from sentiment alone, or a bit of less than accurate journalism.

TLDR:

Word standardizes text through:

- Document templates

- English as lingua franca

- Auto correct and completion

Whether or not you agree (I personally do not find it convincing) it up to you, but there’s a summary because the article is very long-winded.

The internet is not centralized. It is literally the largest decentralized network in existence. A network of networks with no central hub.

Seems intermittent. Sometimes a refresh will work to display files and commit history.

You have it backwards on two counts. First count is the point of POSIX is any OS vendor doesn’t need to worry about any other OS compatibility. Just implement POSIX interfaces. Second count is that is OP’s exact point: it never has been done before, because too many OS vendors give POSIX very little thought. This helps realize the original vision of POSIX.

Yes. No one likes a sore winner. Providing your customers with assurances? Good. Providing tips to Okta customers? Sure. Publicly chastising another company you do business with? Unnecessary. That should be kept private. Just my opinion

> Recommendations for Okta

Seems a bit haughty to publicly chastise another company. The tone of this article is a bit off-putting for me personally.

Good news for me. Somehow the local mediterranean place here had an issue with this so I got to take from the backlog of un-fulfillable orders for free :)

Faulty analogy. The lack of DRM would not hamper my enjoyment of the media, as the lack of anti-cheating ware would hamper my enjoyment of a shared game. Put simply, DRM is about protecting the creator, anti-cheat is about protecting the consumer.

FWIW, I pay for nearly all the streaming apps and still get the file itself through ${other means} because I want it for offline viewing/future viewing etc just like we used to be able to with DVDs. If the streaming provider provided this file, I wouldn’t need to resort to these other means and they wouldn’t lose a customer who now already has to have an alternate pathway to get a soft copy of the file.

> The unfortunate second-order effect of the death of globalization that no one likes to talk about is the rising cost of all kinds of goods and products

These aren’t second-order effects or some kind of dirty secret. Anyone with a high school education in econ understands that buying American is more expensive. What is a far more interesting question is why we are now willing to pay that cost, and how we got here. It’s worth noting that this is largely a counter-current movement within the semi conductor industry, since a lot of industries post-Covid are actually more global, more remote, and less local than ever before. Would be interesting to touch on this.

This pseudo-conspiratorial thinking, that somehow the increased costs of domestic production are a secret the “elites” are trying to “hide,” is just a convenient way to make a very basic observation seem clever and insightful.

Smells like a cheap shot of desperation given recent events and Apple’s rumored AR/VR/MR entry. If anything, Whatsapp’s competitor is Signal and Telegram, not iMessage, since they are cross platform and fulfill the same niche internationally.

Although of course trying to compete with Signal on privacy grounds would be a fool’s errand.

> because at least we can hold them responsible when they don't deliver it

This is a common but I believe overstated, even naive, ideal. What exactly does "holding them responsible" even truly mean? If a company is greenwashing and they are still emitting carbon, what really is the difference between the company who never claimed to care at all? The carbon is emitted all the same. "Oh, the stock price would fall because investors would lose trust." But greenwashing is a dime a dozen these days and I think the investors/upper class know that greenwashing is just marketing and don’t truly expect/care about the cause.

Regarding this, how does anyone hold Parler accountable for making a platform of "free speech"? Either you sign up or you don’t. If you sign up and complain they aren’t extreme enough, they don’t care or at least they don’t have any material reason to care. If you don’t, where else are you going to go? Twitter? But the whole demographic is people who didn’t like Twitter in the first place and want to be with their kind. So how do you "hold them accountable" without say, legislation, regulation, and government oversight, something today’s "free" speech advocates are opposed to?

Faster data rates, lower network congestion, more efficient spectrum allocation, and private commercial networks for IoT. There are many benefits. Although, perhaps marketing has oversold those benefits that will be passed into consumers. Largely, 5G will benefit network operators, carriers, and industry.

5G has not appreciably made “flying more unsafe.” If anything, this is a good push to start updating altimeters to spec (installing bandpass filters, better testing) which actually will make flying more safe because currently these altimeters are susceptible to out of band frequencies.

Yes, that’s exactly what OP proposed. /s