xienze

> I think we're going to suddenly see them greatly scale back training and try to sell inference-only

Remember a few weeks ago when all the AI labs said "we need to slow down, to uh, prevent destroying the world"?

> You can paste in pngs and they'll convert them to svg with varying degrees of success.

I've found Opus to be REALLY good at converting images that are well-suited to being SVGs (decent resolution, sharp edges, clear color boundaries [though gradients do OK]) after a few rounds of back-and-forth. It'll do precise measurements to figure out curvature, the exact colors to use/gradient stepping, simplify complex paths, etc.

> Are you concerned about that, too?

Kind of, because every time you stomp out one of Mother Nature's ways to keep the human population in check, you contribute to letting the population exceed carrying capacity, which leads to things like:

> changes humans do to our ecosystems that we know cause harm, but aren't stopping

Bash scripts don't really help when you're dealing with MCP tools or other tools that are local to the harness itself.

Pi doesn't even support a permissions model. It's extremely barebones, you're expected to customize basically everything.

> sudden panic and desire to "slow down" is because they're hitting the plateau on capability

I don't think that's the motivation, it's because both companies want to IPO and the _only_ way to even hope to be profitable is to do a whole lot less training, which costs a fortune. But unless Chinese labs go along with this gentleman's agreement (they won't), slowing down on training will bring about the inevitable Chinese model parity date more rapidly. At which point the game is well and truly over for OpenAI and Anthropic. Bit of a pickle they've gotten themselves into with the emphasis on being best, with premium prices to match.

> How do you propose to get a court order in a state that doesn't recognize civil unions?

All 50 states recognize civil unions or other relationship arrangements. At that point the courts just have to demand that states treat them the same as any other marriage. Not impossible, certainly not any more so than the seismic shift of redefining a centuries old definition of marriage.

First, I think you're gonna find it's not exactly a sub-single digit opinion today either. Second, the left tends to be extremely selective about who they forgive. Chick-fil A has done their apologies, stopped their donations, the whole song and dance and there's still a burning hatred for them. What's he got to gain at this point? People have made up their mind on him and all the performative apologies in the world won't get him back in anyone's good graces.

The same way they have today, through a court order. People didn't have a problem with extending whatever legal protections to gay people, they objected to redefining marriage to get there. There was always a compromise available but again, sticking it to the religious types was the goal.

So are we just going to ignore the reason why he felt like he had to lie about it? Because it was a very mainstream opinion at the time?

> Prop 8, the anti-gay-marriage proposition that Eich donated money to support, passed with 52% of the vote.

I'm sure you'll eventually have someone chime in here that the proposition was "misleading" and there were "disinformation campaigns" that resulted in this 52% figure, AKA "doesn't count, we know what the vote 'should have been'." People forget that Obama famously stated "marriage is between a man and a woman" in 2008 (was he lying to appeal to more voters? Possibly, but the fact is he said it). It was a very mainstream opinion at the time.

Or if the population decides they won't breed any longer. Which is the problem that's going to play out much faster.

You have to remember that people on the left side of the political spectrum fancy themselves as the intellectual elite. They've never been wrong about anything, and if in hindsight it appears that way (like shutting down nuclear plants), well, surely that was because of a highly sophisticated brainwashing operation by Russia.

> What's to stop a Democratic president from doing the same thing and destroying them?

They probably will, and the comment section here on HN will overwhelmingly applaud it. Next question?

> We need to stop treating housing as a speculative asset.

This kind of assumes the only reason a house appreciates in value is because people are "treating it as an asset" rather than "the house I bought 30 years ago in the middle of nowhere is now smack dab in the middle of a very desirable area." At that point it's simple supply and demand, not some homeowner being greedy.

> The higher the value goes, the higher the taxes go. You raise the rent and your land value taxes go up because it's more valuable

This makes the fatal assumption that just because a house is worth dramatically more than what you paid for it many years ago that your income must have risen just as dramatically. "Oh well, too bad, sell your house and deal with it." Maybe people kind of like living where they've put down roots and don't want to be punished for something outside of their control? Any proposal that boils down to "pay more or fuck off" is not going to go over very well.

Because that would involve seizing assets? The parent meant it's not "real" in the simple-minded sense that people think it is: the average person imagines Elon Musk and other billionaires have a checking account that keeps increasing by tens of thousands of dollars per second because that's the only frame of reference they have. The reality is the wealth is mostly tied up in assets that ain't exactly liquid. Yes yes, they apparently have access to this supposed infinite money glitch where banks will endlessly loan them money without requiring interest payments (which would require liquidating assets for payment and therefore triggering a taxable event, the very thing people think never happens for billionaires). But the fact of the matter is the wealth isn't money in a bank, and therefore not "real" in the sense the parent was referring to. But it is at the same time something they would miss if it was just "taken away", much the same way you'd miss the numbers in your 401k if voters decided you had a few too many millions saved up for retirement.

No it'll be fine as long as you do your part and not drive a car, or have AC, or eat meat, or have children, or live in detached housing, or...

> The text rendering definitely is much, much better than anything else on the open weights market right now

Really? Because basically everything in those screenshots is completely garbled. I didn't follow it super closely but I thought Ideogram or whatever was really good for this particular use, with actual clear text.

> Also, companies spent a long time telling us downloading single songs via Napster was the worst thing ever, before torrenting every book in existence themselves.

So whose viewpoint is right here? Is downloading theft or not? These arguments always boil down to "it's fine when I do it, but wrong when a company does."

I think the models are trying to optimistically avoid doing web searches, because they're surprisingly a lot harder to do well than you'd think.

> personal liability for the executives and managers at the company

How cute, you think the engineers who failed to properly develop and maintain a system that can securely store sensitive information flawlessly won't (or shouldn't) be held accountable.

Every time this topic comes up it makes me wonder how many people on here who go "wow how in this day and age is it possible to have a data breach???" aren't just extraordinarily lucky that no one is really trying to attack the service they created or are fortunate enough to work in the few places that can legitimately say they're nigh-impenetrable.

> Coloniser's mindset much? Finding out people live in a place where is not the same as discovering Penicillin.

Well the people living there certainly weren't going to make themselves known to the rest of the world now were they? The importance of the discovery is debatable but it seems that whitey did legitimately make a discovery, sorry to disappoint you.

Because you might be running something that only talks S3 and want to point it at something local.

> They still need to fix the security issues everyone reimplements every time such as local file disclosure via DTDs, exploding documents due to entity expansion and so on.

Who is doing this reimplementation? You're supposed to be using mature, battle-tested libraries for parsing these formats. Writing your own parser for just about any format is a fool's errand when good implementations that have already addressed these issues exist. Even a simple format like JSON is not immune to performance, safety, and correctness pitfalls.

Yeah it's more of a concern but not "rewrite a ten year old application in Rust to save on the cost of several gigabytes of RAM" bad.

Well let's start with goods and services being more expensive?

> This is so untrue I still don't know how anyone can even claim this.

Because it's referring to long running processes, AKA the kind of things where hot paths can be JITted into faster native code than is possible from static compilation because the JIT has information about the real-world usage patterns.

> Meanwhile when I run tests on my JVM projects it can take 30 seconds just to start

That strongly implies you're using some sort of framework that's doing a _lot_ of initialization. That's not JVM startup time, don't be intellectually dishonest here.

> You simply cannot write processes that use a single digit MiB amount of memory on a JVM and getting down to 2 digits is theoretically possible but requires significant effort.

Again, the main use case for Java is long running server processes. No one cares if the binary is 1, 10, or 100MB or if it consumes 2, 3, or 4x the memory as long as the throughput is there. And Java has a long track record of delivering very good performance in those contexts, coupled with an extremely rich and mature library/tooling ecosystem.

It's good to quantify the extent to which a lot of the stuff on there is just vibe-hosted. But I think it was always pretty apparent that this was the case. You've got numerous providers all running the gamut of:

* Hardware availability

* Competency

* Scruples

Yes, the things that affect your lifestyle w.r.t. oil are contained to just you and your apartment.

> Never understood why the outrage of flock in particular is so big online.

Nobody really cared until they realized that it could be used to more effectively round up our precious illegal immigrants.