daishi55
daishi55 on Hacker News
Just so you know, these are the opinions of a crazy person. And when you share these opinions IRL amongst normal people, they absolutely secretly start to realize you’re a crazy person.
Haha nope. It’s the opposite actually. They need to run candidates willing to say things that I agree with in order for me to vote for them.
Careful, they might ban you!
Maybe but are those limitations more or less onerous than the current requirements to contribute to scientific research? It remains to be seen I think.
When you can equally reasonably make the opposite argument - that AI is going to open up scientific exploration and contribution to a wider range of participants than ever before - then I think it’s a sign that nobody has any idea what’s going to happen and spending time making either claim is probably pointless until we have more data.
Gosh, it’s really so sad what has happened to you. Totally brainwashed.
E: oh it’s a 1 day old account. Sad troll.
Sorry, are you suggesting that the CIA hasn’t done its best to prevent left-wing governments from succeeding in many cases? Because that would be very silly and ahistorical.
I have never seen anything like this. What kind of backdoors did it add to your code?
Is there any evidence though? Of the stolen credit cards being used by deepseek? You said there was “actual evidence”, what is it?
For any reason or no reason? I mean, that’s kind of the point I’m making. Countries disagree and have conflicts all the time. No country should be enabled to unilaterally cut off another’s internet in such cases
I don’t think that one country should get to unilaterally decide whether another country gets internet, no.
> I’ve now applied for over 3 dozen jobs and I’ve heard back from 24 of them with a rejection
Sorry is this a troll? Go check out the SWE subreddits, people are sending out 1000s of applications before they get something.
It’s CPC not CCP, and it’s not like I trust them specifically, but they’ve certainly done less to make me distrust them than my government (USA).
I agree it makes sense in the context of warning people not to short something. But what I am replying to is a person using it generally, not in the context of shorting, to just say “it only looks like I’m wrong because everyone else is crazy and irrational right now, but they’ll come around eventually”. Not exactly a rigorous argument.
> the market can stay gullible, for longer than you stay solvent.
This is essentially just what people say when current reality is different from what they want it to be. Sort of an unfalsifiable escape hatch response to “well observable reality contradicts your claim”
> Don't think the 0.2% really are in agreement that "large, complex projects that used to take them weeks/months can now be completed by agents with a prompt".
If you are at the top of field with unlimited access to the best (public) models then yes, you will agree that this is the case.
> The divide seems to be between people who think you may need to understand the codebase for maintenance, potential future token costs, optimisation, code erosion & being wary of the assumptions/mistakes that they have seen LLMs make, and people who don't review code and are confident that the AI has made no mistakes and will be available for next-to-nothing forever.
This is not the real divide, it’s the divide you want to exist. The real divide is something along the lines of intellectual curiosity, capability, and confidence.
> if/when they break things
Idk man. I’m one of those guys who “doesn’t write code anymore” since early this year. Nothing is breaking. If anything the chance of things breaking is shrinking dramatically, with both the enormous growth in tooling to support agentic software development (where I work, this mainly really good AI code reviews that catch so much more than human reviewers ever could), and the improvements in the models themselves.
Sorry, but the fantasy of all this coming crashing down is just never going to happen. This is just how it is now, and all the structures will continue to adapt to support it even better.
> If you have the will, but not the resources, you can rally people to your cause. You can try to find like-minded individuals with shared goals and with your collective resources, you can build influence.
No offense but this is such a naive, childlike view of how the world works that you might pick up in 5th grade social studies, but which should not survive contact with reality if you have an ounce of thinking ability. If you work two jobs and spend the remainder of your time trying to recover your broken mind and spirit then no, you cannot try to rally people to your cause and embark on a successful public relations campaign with no money and be on a similar playing field to ExxonMobile.
Frankly we both know you don’t even believe what you’re saying.
Concentration of capital is absolutely an inherent truth to capitalism. This is not even a debate it’s a (social) scientific fact.
Those groups are representing people, and yes, in an ideal world, in which politicians simply represent their constituents, they would be unnecessary. In a democracy, public policy is supposed to reflect public opinion. Yet, there is endless political science research showing that public policy usually has very little to do with public opinion. That is because under capitalism, capital concentrates, and it then uses that concentrated capital to influence public policy through legalized corruption (lobbying). If whatever some megacorp is lobbying for were actually in the public interest, and public policy reflected public opinion, there would be no need for their lobbying. They lobby because their interests are not aligned with the public’s interest.
There’s also no union for “the public” which is a little unfortunate since that should basically just be the government.
So yes, TLDR, first restore democracy and then we can talk about whether we need unions anymore. Until that time however, they are the only mechanism the public has to try to wield some degree of influence comparable to that of capital.
In other words, yes, big oil lobbying bad and auto workers union good.
If we define lobbying as using your financial resources and/or political connections (which others lack) to successfully influence policy, then of course it’s corruption. It’s a non-level playing field. Disclosure or transparency do not change this fundamental fact. And it’s an embarrassment to any real idea of egalitarian democracy.
Sounds very complicated and onerous. Any idea why the company would go through all of that process?
AFAIK there is no such explicit, company-wide effort at meta. The article seems to try to slip Meta in there with whatever reporting they are doing on Microsoft, despite there being no such evidence for meta.
To also add an important context to the drop in Claude code users reported for meta - this elides that we are absolutely still using the Anthropic models full steam ahead, but are moving towards internal interfaces and harnesses.
So I would question if that 50% drop in CC users is more of an interface change than anything else.
I for one have stopped explicitly using codex or CC entirely. But the interfaces I am using still use those harnesses under the hood. I wonder how that is counted.
Every time I read one of these types of posts, I never have any idea what the author is talking about.
> at the end of the day, when you run an app on Unix, you're allowing it to act as you with all the powers your user has.
This is not at all how it works on macOS, which is what is being discussed in the original post. There are a million different things that require per-app explicit opt-in permissions. This is a case of user error.
It’s not possible. User error lol
LOL! Very sad.
And of course there is a lot of ambiguity and unknown here. But this guy I don’t think has the capacity to deal with that kind of subtlety.
Yeah you already tried that one.
You’re hiding behind implications because your actual argument doesn’t withstand the slightest scrutiny.
You have yet to respond to either of the points I made. Zero intellectual conviction or courage!
Can you give an example of some of these things?
Oh no I meant to compare myself to the person I am talking to, because I believe my credentials and pedigree ought to convince them that I am a pretty smart guy and so the argument “if you think LLMs are intelligent then you’re dumb” doesn’t ring true for me.