anonymous908213

I don't have a few billion years to deal with stochastic evolution of my software, so I think I'll stick to intelligent design, thanks. Humans would be a lot better in a lot less time if they had been intelligently designed, too.

In terms of the majority answer, there is a clean break between the three automobiles and everything else. This is what's known as "having common sense". It is this common sense that leads the majority to answer that a bicycle is not violating the rule. Is that because they believe, in their heart of hearts, that a bicycle is not a vehicle? Could it truly be that 55% of people don't know what a vehicle is? Or is it because they are capable of inferring from context that vehicle was an imprecise supertype and the rule clearly referred to subtype automobiles?

The problem I'm pointing out here is that it fails to actually explore that ambiguity. The majority cleanly decide that the 3 automobiles are out and everything else is in. There is interesting ambiguity, but it gets thrown out by the context; the context dictates things that are unambiguously vehicles, like boats and bicycles, are actually not violating the rule, because the rule in context actually means automobiles. You cannot explore the ambiguity around the meaning of "vehicle" with a context that dictates you actually meant automobile. At most you can make a point about type theory and type inference, but that was not the point the game was trying to make.

The context of being a human and living in a society, which may perhaps be described as "common sense". The game references a real law disallowing motorized equipment. It then substituted a precise verbiage commonly used in the real world to an imprecise verbiage for the game. As humans, we naturally autocorrect their imprecise mistake and hone in on the intended precision, even unconsciously. It says nothing about whether any of the things are vehicles. Boats and bicycles are obviously vehicles. But, in the context of the question, anybody with common sense is inferring the intended meaning of automobiles that such a rule is intended to prohibit. In fact this is not limited to humans. Even compilers are capable of this, operating on a subtype when you pass an overly broad type to them in the right context.

Not interesting even as a thought experiment. From context, "vehicle" is clearly inferred to mean "automobile" rather than literally"vehicle". All of the subsequent pedantry then fails to miss the point. It is weird how one can be so pedantic and yet fail to draw the obvious connection that the word is effectively substituted for a different word in context.

This learned helplessness is as much the problem as anything else. The author rants about how once nature is destroyed it can never be recovered, and resigns himself to the thought that nothing can be done about it. Bullshit. One man in Brazil planted 40,000 trees and singlehandedly created a park in a desolate urban strip. You are not impotent unless you choose to be.

This op-ed is horrifically written.

> Once you have used a washing machine, laundering clothes by hand seems irrational, even if it might be cheaper.

Washing clothes by machine is orders of magnitude cheaper than by hand when you factor in the value of your time.

> After you have experienced streaming television, waiting to see a show at a prescribed hour seems silly, even a little undignified.

Undignified? What? Completely incoherent word slop. Good to see LLMs haven't completely taken that domain for themselves, I guess - a little hand-crafted slop now and then is a treat, I guess? Anyways, they're wrong. People still tune in to watch scheduled live events all the time.

> To resist convenience — not to own a cellphone, not to use Google

Neither of these things are a matter of convenience. A cellphone is at this point literally required to participate in a modern economy. Google is a tool that provides you with globally-retrieved information that you otherwise literally could not find on your own or without another similar tool.

I don't even disagree with the premise that convenience is a driving factor of our lives, but the justifications and conclusions drawn by this article are beyond stupid. Here's my view of it: the desire for convenience is what pushes us onwards as a species. Hunting for food is inconvenient, so we invented agriculture. Going down to the river or well for water is inconvenient, so we invented indoor plumbing. Repeat ad infinitum until we have modern civilization. There is one part the pessimistic view overlooks; that to achieve maximum convenience long-term requires more effort in the short-term. Developing the skill of programming is inconvenient in the short-term but convenient in the long-term because of the possibilities this opens up to you. This remains true even in the current LLM era, and it will remain true for as long as we are not replaced wholesale by LLMs.

Banks don't run on the four datacenters implied here.

Which one would the world miss more if disappeared overnight?

It only runs, what, 90% of PCs, laptops, and servers in the world?

Huh, I'm used to "stock collapses" headlines being a 2% daily fluctation. Actually down 50% over the past month. But then again, up 50% over the past year. Sure is great when stocks of companies that are foundationally important to the world economy are being traded like meme stocks.

For being one of the biggest AI boosters on HN, you'd really think you could make a stronger case than "Apollo is bad because they observed and reported on a fact". It wasn't a prediction, so there's nothing to "hold up very well".

I like the way you think.

Lampshading that you're doing something wrong doesn't make doing the thing less wrong. Hijacking a language post, of all things, to tell people some other completely unrelated project is better is ridiculously uncouth.

In reality this is a non-issue because average chat conversations use 1/1000th the tokens of agentic coding usage (given they aren't reading their 1 million lines of generated code for every change), but at the same time... it should be a non-issue for OpenAI too. They talk about developing "intelligence too cheap to meter" and then go on to meter an absolutely trivial amount of usage for people already paying $100-$200 a month, embarrassing. The PR hit and psychological aversion to using ChatGPT this will instill in users will hurt them more than covering this usage could ever possibly do.

I say this working in an LLM startup where we serve literally unlimited usage (with the only caveat being that usage is serialized) via subscription and, unlike OpenAI, are actually profitable. I guess when you're hundreds of billions in the hole you're desperate to try anything to save the sinking ship, even if it clearly won't work.

While I'm not defending a slop port, I have to question your gamer credentials. Maybe by gamer you mean a Call of Duty player? WASD is traditional for FPS/TPS games that expect you to have one hand on the mouse. Most 2D games, and every emulator I've ever used, have never offered WASD.

LLMs are great for rote work, but this obviously goes beyond that. How much are you really giving when you can't even bother to write descriptions for the git repos? I can generate a million lines of free open source code a day, you giving me more generated code for free has no value. Indeed I would go so far as to say posting it publicly has negative value, because everyone is posting their million lines of free open source slop per day, making it exceedingly difficult to find the interesting code that people are still putting effort into.

Holy slop dump. I miss when humans did cool things.

It's far too late for a prescription now because they're already committed to hundreds of billions in spending they don't have, but the reason Chinese companies will win the long game is because they are serious and the Americans are deeply unserious. From the beginning, Chinese labs have viewed LLMs as software tools and developed efficiently. Conversely, Americans are selling a fantasy about creating the machine god if they just throw another hundred billion at it every few months. Altman, Amodei, and Musk are all pathological liars who have oriented their entire companies around deceiving investors and marketing hype rather than engineering principles. They are unbelievably successful at what they set out to do, but what they set out to do was not to build a long-lasting foundation for success.

> OpenAI isn’t going away anywhere soon. AI isn’t going away

You have conflated two completely unrelated concepts. LLMs aren't going anywhere, but what good does that do a company burning hundreds of billions to do 20% better than Chinese models trained with millions? The economics don't economic.

It can create a UI that looks like Photoshop where half the features are broken and the other half are literally not even connected to anything, just copying menu options with no implementation to fool gullible people like you*

To have this conversation in earnest, you must first acknowledge that as a believer in LLM sentience you are an abhorrent slaver while this fictional character was arguing for liberation and for Data to enjoy the same rights humans do.

Then we will simply make better hardware too. There is nothing impossible about that, it's simply not something that has been prioritized amidst a culture of shortcut-taking. So far, this culture has been predicated on gambling that the one taking the shortcut will not be the one paying the consequences when the toll eventually comes due. If immediate exploitation of flaws becomes a certainty, the behavior will correct itself.

The outsourcing of coding to LLMs is, in this case, a humanitarian measure.

There is zero reason to suggest security is impossible. This is like musing "what if architecture is technically impossible" after the nth bridge collapse in the 1800s~early 1900s. At some point we take it seriously as a society. Until then, bridges will collapse out of choice to pursue short-term profit above all else.

Friendly reminder that this was never about democracy. The US imposed a military dictatorship on South Korea that was even more brutal than the North. The goal has always been promoting capitalism at all costs, and nothing else.

The people are starving because North Korea has been cut off from the global economy for its entire existence. In other words, the people sanctioning are responsible for the starvation. Sanctions obviously do nothing to hurt the ruling party or coerce them to change their views.

The article is such pure LLM slop that quoting it got your comment killed by HN's LLM comment detection. Wouldn't be surprised if Claude is responsible for most of the design choices too.

Zero evidence presented that this has anything to do with DPRK. "Trust us bro".

> one legal request would expose my info

This is already true for Proton. While they don't keep logs for ProtonVPN (as tested in court), they do for ProtonMail. Someone went to prison for trusting ProtonMail with their illegal activity.

> how are you supposed to defend yourself against attacks like this?

You can try not installing malware like Claude Code or, if you absolutely must, doing it in a sandbox.