z3c0

"Digital effects" have always been a grey area for unreasonable search-and-seizure. This was an infamous moment for the late Antonin Scalia, who, iirc, argued that the constistution couldn't reasonably be addressing this matter, as the Founding Fathers had no concept of digital effects when defining "documents and effects".

I'd say the biggest indicator towards crime is self-absorption and lack of empathy. Apparently, HN comments are great place to devise a corpus upon.

Decades worth of hackers missed the opportunity to say "It wasn't me -- my computer did it."

I expect because it's overly reductive to the point of falsehood. Two sufficiently complex systems will likely exhibit enough parallels to form a useful analogy, but that does nothing to reflect the ways the systems aren't alike.

I'm not outside of enterprise and have worked hands-on for over a decade with AI-driven customer workflows. The cost of accessibility audits are NOT higher than AI R&D or third-party B2B contracts for vaporware touting to do the same.

Sorry if that assertion stands opposed to your value prop.

Because they would have to reveal their training regiment, which likely formed the basis for versions 4 and 5.

Or did you just mean the weights? If so, the open models distilled from GPT3 should mostly suffice. That's what good "open weights" are.

Research and fallbacks would certainly be better. An 85% design, 15% algorithmic solution is probably the sweet "pobody's nerfect" spot, but a company using AI to solve accessibility is like selling rape whistles -- in a perfect world, your market is nonexistent.

> Even the Citizens United decision did not set the bar for civil damages to be awarded for a civil rights violation to a 'corporate personhood'

I'm almost upset at the notion only being invoked. Let's hope we don't see such a precedence emerge, especially around a company touting to be selling "intelligence".

Using AI to close gaps in accessibility is like adding treads to your vehicle because society is too lazy to pave roads.

Yeah, the holier-than-thou vibe-coder is a new cliche I'm not enjoying.

I have seen it do exactly that, in a "hands thrown up" fashion.

Note the levels of "thinking" that occur on NOT assertions. Those streams typically keep things on track. It's not that saying "don't use the Internet" will cause it to rebuke cos misalignment (a childish concept made by laymen, I'll add.) It's that the odds of it later "forgetfully" spewing in a thought stream, "wait, I have't checked the Internet" goes up substantially.

Saying "using only offline methods, do xyz" limits those odds considerably.

This isn't opinion or anecdote -- just how the model works. The additional guardrails to keep the model on track are bolted on via finetuning, hence the increasing jankiness.

Correct. Simulating a train of thought with contextual token streams, a thought does not make.

It'll work up to a point, but pay attention to the thought streams when asserting what NOT to do and you'll see the turmoil it creates in the context.

Your prompt is more of a linguistic linchpin that allows you to coax out needed patterns. You place your pins on what you want to contextualize for the task at hand, not on what you don't want to contextualize.

It's also worth noting that saying "Don't cheat" just added "cheat" to the context. Prompting what "not" to do is folly, because there's no decision making occurring. Telling the model to perform the task locally is logically the same as telling it to not use the Internet, without every mentioning the Internet.

The AI service that trained and hosts the model, and then gave access to the general public while deferring their actual liability via a sneaky ToS.

It's strange how many people feel ownership over "their" agents, and it's clear that AI companies plan to take advantage of that as a way to avoid legal liability for the things they actually do -- with their servers and their code -- on behalf of someone who only wrote a string.

And whether or not what replaces it is any better. Historically speaking, widespread democracy is still a recent development.

Also, analytics are not limited by JavaScript and browser APIs. Getting your attention isn't so valuable without knowing how to do it a second time.

I'm struggling to imagine aliens resurrecting a data center and countless hackneyed python packages so they can spew a language they don't even know. Not that it wouldn't be useful to their linguists, of course, but still a very optimistic analogy for LLMs.

When measuring and reporting models to the non-saavy, I usually reframe them into odds. One failure for every 49 successes is a scary failure rate when operating at a large scale.

This is largely why I don't condone LLMs in operational pipelines. Your workflow? Fine. The company's? Hell no.

> Artificial intelligence, by expanding firms' computational capabilities, is pushing markets from the competitive regime toward the collusive regime, explaining the empirical emergence of algorithmic collusion without explicit coordination.

Wow... this is quite fascinating. It has been theorized for a little while that widespread AI could form accidental trusts due to optimization around one-another. This seems to be taking it a step further and arguing that if P!=NP, then markets are certain to trend towards collusive.

I miss "predictive analytics". Too boring and honest for marketers though.

Growing up rural, the grift has been obvious my whole ĺife

> I hope they can expose the ridiculousness of software copyrights but I won't be holding my breath.

I think it has already, but it's a hard pill for many to swallow. While I haven't actually counted, the conversations around the effectiveness of copyright/IP seem to be regular conversations now, both here and IRL.

The goal is the product, but what is being exchanged is production, ie labor for a certificate of your own past production, aka money.

> Heaven help me, though, should I misuse a corporation's copyrighted works, even purely personally.

This imbalance is the issue. The photographer attempted to use a fraudulent system designed for the wealthy. Hopefully the loss disillusions those among us hoping for scraps. As an amateur photographer, post all you want, and expect nothing in return. If you shoot digital, keep your raw files to harvest lower-fidelty, online-ready formats. If you shoot film, you have both the scans and the negatives.

So "Play Protect" is doing all the damage to the third-party ecosystem that it'd seemed designed for.

I've slowly but surely been moving away from any service provider of any type who does not allow me to use their service without their often Play Services-dependent app. Changing vehicles would be a lot harder though.

It's a retrospective analysis of an assertion made by NYTimes. The original headline wasn't clickbait, just presumptive, and even so, it's a pretty significant publication that spends a lot of time on the HN front page (alongside you, I'll add). I think it's perfectly fair, and nowhere close to a strawman, to deconstruct that claim a year later.

They are a self-described 10x coder who moves AI slop, so almost certainly the latter.

I think we might be facing a cultural reckoning on what being "productive" actually means. Creating more products doesn't mean more production.

That might be an even more naive take.

Can you show me one space, historically, in any industry, where a company climbed to the top of a market solely on altruistic intentions?

I mean this earnestly: is this copy?