georgemcbay
That said, this also won't be a problem for casinos. They have very advanced anti-cheating systems these days.
The corporate casino security teams will know about this before it becomes widely available and will institute policies to lifetime ban anyone they detect using this tech, which they will fairly easily be able to do because of how much automated surveillance there is in any real casino.
In any case, there are way more subtle signaling mechanisms people can use to collaborate that don't involve someone suspiciously silent talking right in front of a dealer.
But a big part of the reason this has been true is that (mostly-software-based) tech companies haven't historically been spending significant billions of dollars every year in capex.
I'm not a mathematician at all, so yeah I certainly didn't have a chance.
> It was not some great awesome fair thing that math was dominated by some outrageous outliers on the iq spectrum. It's not some great awesome fair thing now either.
I don't see these as equivalent circumstances. For most people if they get beat by someone smarter or someone stronger, it may be disappointing but they can still respect and admire that they were beat by talent/determination/etc.
Getting beat due to access to money just feels slimy, because at some level we all realize money is not distributed on a meritocratic curve at all, at least not if you are measuring values any well-adjusted person would consider positive.
My assumption (based on perceived human nature) is that the raw proofs will not be made available.
If all of the important credit goes to the person who attached understanding to them, I'd assume those with the money to take the first step will keep the AI proofs secret until they believe they have adequately done the follow-up that will give them the lion's share of any credit.
Yeah, I have no horse in the race as a non-user of Proton, but even if you completely removed AI from the situation entirely, if I worked for a CEO that ever used the term "loser thinking" non-sarcastically that would be enough to get me looking for another job.
And if I were a customer, get me looking for another provider.
Less capable (but good enough) mathematicians with more capital will have a huge advantage over great mathematicians who are broke.
I'm not a mathematician, but that situation rubs everyone (except those with the most capital) the wrong way.
They are also probably intentionally trying to create differentiation between their models and open models to strengthen the regulatory capture case of having the government ban open model use.
Unfortunately LLMs still optimize scams/exploits to the point that they'll probably still get to those of us heading into the permanent underclass, just a little slower.
Not yet, especially not with all of the incestuous cross-hiring that all the labs do.
But perhaps the various L. Bob Rife variants running these labs are using their advanced unreleased models to work on their own Snow Crashes.
It seems likely to me that this is also true for the Proton employees. (Though FWIW, I've had a few employers that I would absolutely proactively defend, but they are not surprisingly the same set of employers I don't think would ever need such a defense, and none of them were large companies).
I haven't been paying attention to any of this drama because I don't use Proton mail and thus don't care, but one of the screenshots on the linked reddit post that they seem to believe is exonerating the company has what appears to be the CEO of the company (I assume "Andy" is Andy Yen based on the name and profile picture) telling an employee to get on reddit with their personal account and "set the record straight".
After seeing that, I don't know how anyone is supposed to assume that anything any Proton employee says in public is anything other than PR spin originating directly from the CEO, so I don't know what kind of value any of us is supposed to get from reading any such testimony.
If "the market" believes this, I'd love for "the market" to explain to me how they think this works in practice.
Like if Anthropic hits AGI on Monday, what stops Google or OpenAI from hitting AGI on Tuesday?
There is no substantial difference in capabilities between any of these models, they are all doing the tiniest little leapfrogs over each other from release to release.
Even if the market thinks this leads to AGI, there is no reason to believe any secret magic exists that makes one of them reach AGI without the rest hitting AGI nearly immediately after.
Ask HN: Who didn't get hacked today.
Hopefully, but I think it is going to be difficult for that to happen in a positive way because AI is likely to suppress wages for most (for the reasons you mentioned) but our entire current economic system is engineered to never be deflationary.
So it is hard to imagine a situation in which AI causes us to all earn less but still be equally or better off without some pretty fundamental changes to our economic system that will be hard to get consensus on in our current political environment.
I'm not saying we're surely all doomed here, but there are going to be a lot of changes that none of us can imagine every aspect of, and they are going to happen at a surprising speed, and there are a vast number of cascading impacts that people aren't thinking much about.
eg. if you're in the trades, yes you're safer than a knowledge worker for now, but if all the knowledge workers get wiped out you're both going to have vastly decreased demand for your work (far less individuals will have the disposable income to hire you, companies will have less need for facilities to house employees, so you'll also see a retrenchment on the corporate side) and you'll start getting a labor supply glut as the knowledge workers all desperately attempt to retrain for the 'safe' jobs. And this is just the short term problem, without getting into the robotics threat.
If we don't get ahead of this problem politically (spoiler alert: we won't, at least in the US, it is unclear if we even have a functioning democracy), things are going to get very messy for virtually everyone who relies on labor income.
It is a perception management issue, not a technical limitation.
Nasdaq doesn't want to be seen as a place where people trade literal penny stocks.
Technically the major exchanges already support stock prices in a fraction of a cent (though they only unlock this for stock prices that are below $1 due to SEC Rule 612).
Almost certainly nobody if you're tracking post-IPO growth.
And not because there won't be survivors/winners when the next crash comes (there probably will be) but because of the market changes (in the wake of legislation like the JOBS act) that result in these companies having their significant growth periods prior to IPO instead of after it.
IPOs used to be a launch pad to growth, now they are just a way for private investors to finally cash out when the company is already close to peak valuation.
Different experience for me, IMO AI mode saved Google search. The classic search became pretty much worthless due to decades of SEO winning over good results. But AI mode made Google search far more useful for me and gives me what I'm looking for 99.9% of the time.
I do understand some people (website operators who used to rely on SEO or google stockholders after the recent earnings report) being upset about AI mode, but as a search user I find it much more effective than where search was just prior to AI mode.
It is entirely related to both and I'm pretty sure Gizmodo isn't trying to project blame away from climate change here.
Climate change is making unusually adverse weather events more common in general. El Niño is a cyclical event that results in an increase in adverse weather events from whatever the current baseline is.
As climate change worsens things on average, it'll worsen things even more when combined with amplification events like El Niño.
Their kid is definitely getting at least 30 dolls and 250 pencils.
I honestly don't see how this has anything to do with my reply to the original comment.
Even if you were absolutely sure LLMs were going to get as good as they are today 2 years ago, that didn't make them any more of a practical solution to the issues you were trying to solve 2 years ago.
It is likely that the SpaceX Starship will eventually be a reliable rocket platform. That doesn't mean that given the chance I would hop on the next flight.
2 years ago LLMs were a great tech demo but were mostly awful for actual practical purposes and hallucinated almost as much as they got right.
They'd be wrong today, but that's a different thing.
Yes, mostly.
Star Trek (particularly, but not only, TNG) was seminal sci-fi entertainment in the childhood, teen or young adult eras for many now-40+ nerds who went on to work in tech.
Patrick Stewart has done a lot of other great work as well, and should be remembered for that, but his role as Picard in Star Trek: TNG makes him highly relevant to this site.
Absolutely.
> I would like to understand though since Stewart was filming up until this year? What was the time frame like, was it a more sudden onset or was he able to manage somewhat while continuing to film and work?
AFAIK, his last role as a film actor was in Doomsday, which comes out in December 2026 but filmed late last year. The timeline does seem incredibly quick for a natural death from Alzheimer's disease and Lewy body dementia if he wasn't somehow secretly and very effectively hiding it for the past near-decade.
I suspect (but obviously don't know) that he may have checked out on his own terms rather than literally dying due to the disease progression. I understand why people don't like to talk about it, especially given legal issues faced by anyone who may have assisted in many jurisdictions.
In California it can be legal to assist but technically only if a doctor decides you will live less than 6 months, which IMO is an awfully narrow requirement. I wish people could be more open about it (and that the laws weren't so fucking stupid).
In any case, shocking and sad news. I never would have guessed we'd lose Patrick Stewart before William Shatner or Ian McKellen. 86 isn't exactly young or anything, but he seemed to be still incredibly vibrant in very recent productions.
I think it is mostly temporal filtering (due to rosy retrospection and survivorship bias combined with Sturgeon’s Law) that we all naturally fall into.
Most games 5+ years ago were also bad, but you remember the small set that were good and completely forget all the bad, and this builds an impression that games in the past were so much better. The same applies to movies, music, books, etc.
Of course, in the age of AI, a lot more (in absolute terms) shovelware content is likely to be made than ever before, so it'll probably hyper-accelerate the impact of this phenomenon.
Yeah, it boils down to the same reasons why many corporations want an incredibly broken H-1B system at the higher end: it provides an exploitable pool of workers.
And currently in both cases you can find a lot of consternation from the people who benefitted from how things worked prior to Trump because the administration is making significant changes to the status quo. The business owners loved the rhetoric about fixing immigration, but assumed the broken systems that gave them the benefits of exploiting those worker pools would largely be maintained as they had been.
And to be explicitly clear with my opinion, neither side of this conflict (businesses that want to maintain the broken-but-works-for-us system, or the Trump administration) are the good guys here. The businesses want to keep exploiting migrant workers unimpeded and the administration wants to be maximally racist more than it wants to help businesses keep exploiting.
Not only is this true, but most of the legacy media landscape also shifted hard to the right (in large part due to massive corporate consolidation) over the past decade, so Fox isn't even especially unique anymore in terms of being extremely right-partisan.
A bubble that is obscuring that most of the economy is pretty weak.
It increasingly looks like everything is getting K-shaped. Not just the income of labor, but the earnings of corporations.
A lot (but yes, not all) of that research is publicly funded and then locked away behind corporate paywalls.
One individual human (Cypher) did choose to be plugged back in, though it didn't work out for him.