bbor
In context of this paper though, the author is saying the opposite, and mocking the fatcat CEOs for corrupting the pure institution of copyright so.
For media bosses, copyright is a pseudo-property† right
Regardless, 'I agree with these people I always disagree with are somehow right this time despite acting like they always do' should be a sign that some reflection is needed!
Great work. I doubt you care, but try not to get caught up in the idea that you might have violated someones god-given property rights by making pretty flowers for fun in the margins of PDFs.
~/ai/...
campaigns
dispatch
evidence
reports
scratch
telemetry
worktrees
quarantine
BULLETIN.md
README.mdTo clarify in good faith: what percentage of Android development do you think went on before 2005 in, let's say, mythical man months. 5%? 1%? Less?
Android was made in 2003 by other people.
They used to have a second minimint in AdSense et. al. ("Display Advertising"), but that shrinks by the year economy-wide as the vicious cycle of data tracking, ad blocking, and paywall dodging continues. Now it's a mere $7B[1], compared to $11B for Youtube (technically also Display Advertising but it gets its own segment now, I guess) and $63B from the money printer proper.
[1] Actual report here: https://s206.q4cdn.com/479360582/files/doc_financials/2026/q... Interestingly, display revenues are slightly up! But still, in Google land, "slightly up" is potentially a scandalous failure. Perhaps they settled into better agreements with big publishers ("sell side") after it became clear that they wouldn't actually be punished for having a Display Ads monopoly, despite losing the antitrust case brought by Biden's DoJ.
:(
I do wonder how these radical skeptics --Paris Marx, Ed Zitron, Emily Bender, Alex Hanna, Arvind Narayanan & Sayash Kapoor, etc.-- will be viewed by posterity, assuming such a thing exists. When the first catastrophe(s) strike, will they just fade into obscurity, or catch some of the blame?
...on second thought, the most likely answer is that they'll just seamlessly slide into a different brand of "Anti-AI"-ism, neither acknowledging nor facing redicule for the fact that they'd have to completely abandon their core arguments to do so. If I die of a molotov thrown in 2029 from someone in this crowd after spending years begging them to look up, I'm gonna be so miffed.
The end of your response seems to be about fears of “model collapse” from a few years ago, but I am convinced those are strongly oversold. For one thing, there’s no need to gather new training data ever again; the training data for Opus is clearly sufficient for instilling reason, and that’s a sufficient condition for AGI -> RSI -> ASI.
“To put me to work that way, without remittance, is a form of slave labor,” said Wolff, professor emeritus of English and winner of the National Medal of Arts.
Yet again, Anthropic is the good guys. Though I think this is just the same story from a while ago but told through a Stanford lens, AFAICT?
To me, goals without plans behind them aren't really goals at all
As usual, though, I might just be biased by default towards defending the Python aristocracy; they seem to pretty much always be on the right side of history, even in the little ways!
I’ve found it’s a lot, lot harder than I expected, though I’m targeting aroids (monstera, philodendron, pothos, anthurium, etc) rather than trees, which adds the tricky requirement to get the leaves to unfurl naturally from their petioles. Not quite completely discouraged yet though, sadly!
So Chomsky thought of himself as a philosopher of science more than anything, and his life mission is/was to answer a fascinating question: what kind of creatures are we? There's been a growing consensus going back to at least Darwin that we're separated from the rest of Animalia by our "reason" (!= intuition != understanding != judgement != volition), but he helped popularize an old theory[1] that puts it kind of beautifully: human language is only possible in beings capable of producing an infinite set of meaningful outputs in response to a finite input.[2] And so far, that list includes only two definite members: Homo sapiens sapiens, and computer programs built upon large language models.[3]
So all that to say: yes, I think you're wrong; the programmatic ensembles that brought us today's breakthroughs are an "infinitely deep well". As long as we have questions to ask, they are not theoretically constrained from answering them.
Of course, this invites some obvious follow-ups on practicality; even the most impassioned ASI boomer wouldn't argue that the exact ensembles used here could answer every question in the universe. But A) that's possible because some infinities are bigger than others, and B) the exact same caveat applies to humans, whose cognitive capabilities are thoroughly determined by accidents of biology, culture, and episteme. The latter is the thrust of Chomsky's famous debate with Foucault, which is absolutely worth a watch for anyone who hasn't seen it (starting around ~18:00, AFAIR): https://youtu.be/3wfNl2L0Gf8?t=1080
---
TL;DR: I ultimately disagree on both points, yes. In the ways that matter, machines are no more constrained than animals.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_von_Humboldt
[2]: Many animals are capable of communication, often quite complex and fascinating communication at that; even flora and fungi communicate! But language is qualitatively distinct. You may have heard this in the pithy-yet-mindbending sentiment "we've taught many apes to communicate with sign language, but none of them have ever asked a question."
[3]: It's no surprise in hindsight that trying to build better autocorrect got us to AGI; I find it unspeakably tragic that Chomsky never got the chance to see how thoroughly he's been vindicated, in this regard. He had his stroke mere months into the singularity, and had a quite negative view of the approach before then.
All AI is good for is remixing frontier mathematics, there’s no way it could ever make its own. Right?
The second biggest difference, though, is that I haven't used Opus 5.5 in a few days cause I ran out of credits on Thursday! So... you might be doing something right, there ;)
One thing you could check is the files that tend to get read into context, especially their built-in "memory" feature, which can get insanely cluttered if not actively maintained. This is why I prefer keeping everything I can to three other abstractions, none of them harness-specific: reports (roughly per-(long-)turn), policies (human readable, very concise, identified with unique slugs, system-wide), and tasks (Plane/Trello/Linear/etc., mentioned in git commits).
For something like "high level performance choices", a policy to always think about performance explicitly before reporting back could honestly do wonders. As you say yourself, they're typically smart enough to know what to do when reminded of your priorities or asked explicitly. The trick is to not prioritize everything, everywhere, all at once!
...so weird talking about how to best use these agents, BTW. Truly shuffling the deck chairs on our Titanic of a career/civilization.
Sure, we can't say for sure that all 4 million of the jobs who downloaded (not built-with, but downloaded to cache anew) this library yesterday are running public-facing servers. But what subset of them might be? How much would it take before it's a concern?
Python feels particularly worrisome to me, as those are the kind of casually-setup servers on local dev boxes for some random little tool that are the most fertile ground for an exploit like this, where creds could be spread around in plaintext and malware could go unnoticed for a long time. And, of course, where the developers responsible probably aren't in the habit of watching the CVE list (yet...).
I hope I'm not coming across as rude -- I am honestly curious!
I can't find download numbers for extras, but it comes in the pretty dang innocuous-seeming `aiohttp[speedups]`, as well. Also `urllib3[brotli]`. Many, many people will be running these servers without recognizing the name of the library, especially in the agentic era.
I might be missing something obvious in your message, cause I don't see why server/client is relevant. Why would a frontend app speak a protocol that the backend doesn't?
1. You are not necessarily "born with" ADHD. That's certainly a very plausible explanation, but ADHD is a disorder defined solely for diagnostic reasons, using only collections of symptoms; unlike a typical physical disease, no internal mechanisms or underlying causes are posited, on purpose. So saying with confidence that you can never develop it during lifetime is just invalid, putting aside the more philosophical discussions of nature v. nurture and free will that would come up if that roadblock were ever cleared.
2. In the new DSM5-defined paradigm, the three "presentations" of ADHD are assumed to present at different times at different intensities through the typical sufferer's lifespan, with the prototypical progression being Hyperactive-Impulsive or Combined in childhood that leads into Inattentive in adulthood. This is far from absolute, or at least it's supposed to be -- sadly many US psychiatrists still insist on seeing evidence of hyperactivity in childhood before trying out an adult ADHD diagnosis, based mostly on outdated, partial advice from the DSM4.
3. As the flipside of #1, it can also go away without explanation or reason, i.e. go into "remission"; I don't care to gather data on common that is, but I can say with absolute certainty that it cannot be ruled out. That's just how DSM-defined mental health disorders work on a fundamental level.
4. Either way, none of that is relevant to the question of how prevelant it is overall, which is simply a matter of empirical measurement. Without looking it up, I feel confident that it's well below 50%, so objectively "rare" in some sense.
5. I feel like the "some people just get better at managing it" thing is some personal axe you're grinding about people who are virtuous enough to just grit their teeth through psychiatric disorders vs. those who use drugs to cheat. If not: sorry! If so: please don't do that.
Finally, the "edit" button is inline, it just disappears after some amount of time for some odd reason. HN UI never fails to confuse me, as well!
Anyway, as a side note:
People on ADHD medicine are also going through mental health treatments and get special care and privileges in society
the effects of ADHD medication numb their responses and emotions to what seems outwardly stable and normal but deep inside it is an inhibitor of development
I suppose impulsivity in terms of working on what I should be working on instead of going into some rabbit hole is a type of impulsivity, and that's certainly decreased! I wouldn't call the former state "fun" though... more like "shameful", "irrational", and "distressing". Personally -- YMMV.
Anyway: yes that's plausible, as this review found pretty strong evidence of increased mortality from injury. Still, I'd personally say it's unlikely for two major reasons:
1. Presumably most injury deaths happen to adults, which are relatively quite unlikely to have the HI presentation.
2. There's just so many plausible causes of injuries, especially in a society with cars. The inclusion of "intentional injury" also introduces a factor that's no doubt strongly corellated with socioeconomic status (i.e. being murdered/manslaughtered), another very plausible cause.