kanzure
kanzure on Hacker News
> Kind of sad seeing so many “tech people” (including here on HN) falling for it hook, line, and sinker.
Unfortunately it is not sufficient for someone to think "I am immune to marketing" to actually be immune against marketing.
That's cool. Ultrasound imaging should be much more broadly available, like household object next to your toothbrush. I wonder how OpenWater open-source focused ultrasound stimulation is doing.
Well, you could intercept those (gmail etc) requests locally, run fast local classification, and deny anything you don't like. Meanwhile, you can still grant some non-zero level of access and get the agentic benefits?
Also, not every task is worthy of applying (human) galaxy brain consideration. Sometimes a task is satisfied by cheap + dumb work.
Yep, my prediction is that Anthropic is going to use Claude's reputation to "launder" known solutions to aging, cancer, and other things that society hasn't accepted quite yet. But maybe with the right marketing we'll try those things!
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49329717
Can you add viewed tweets?
While you might have access to the subculture, there is no obligation for anyone else to respond, collaborate or engage with random you. This is a common mistaken understanding about open-source software projects where users often believe they have "rights" to compel or coerce volunteer developers to listen or reply to them. Developers collaborating together isn't a conspiracy, it's just preferences getting played out. No, I don't want to collaborate with someone that I don't like.... duh?
It gets bad when the subculture inhabitants get confused and adopt the social norms of the passer bys instead of remembering the importance of well-kept gardens. And then they start to introduce "policy".. which is just a backdoor for attackers to destroy your well-kept garden by arguing policy (as if that was what the subculture was about!).
These models seem to be bad at writing prose or text. Many of the sentence structures seem to be unvaried.
Yep. Same here. I frequently tell agents things like "answer using only a single sentence" and "write no more than 10 words". They are excellent at writing code, so have them write code (and not English prose). Besides, most of the time we want them to make reusable software that doesn't require users (or future agents) to read too much text. Software should generally just work and do the obvious thing, without needing verbose explanation.
Quality control and testing is absolutely essential, yeah. It's hard work and the plan shouldn't be misconstrued as "rewrite the whole genome of an embryo today and go for the first birth immediately" because that would be stupid when we know there is other work to be done. It shouldn't surprise ANYONE that making significant progress against cancer, aging, or other issues, would take lots of work and not doing the immediate obvious broken thing.
Well, first, I would have to check and see if the synoynmous codons are important for virus reproduction. Second, this technique requires (AFAIK) lots of cell line viability testing and lots of tweaking. I don't think it's as simple as code swapping all the codons and then all the biology magically works the right way, biology is rarely that simple. Requires effort.
> We will cure virus.
It is possible to prevent most viruses by recoding the human genome (requires embryo engineering or pre-embryo engineering) to use alternate codons that existing natty viruses don't use. This wouldn't prevent synthetic viruses from being developed that use the alternate codons, of course. See (1) https://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/hgp-write/2016-05-10/ultr... and (2) https://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/hgp-write/2017-05-09/ultr... and (3) https://x.com/RokoMijic/status/1720875112541364535 for some background.
As for "curing cancer", I suspect that Anthropic or OpenAI will use their high status/reputation to launder the existing solutions (germline, p53, enhanced DNA damage repair pathways, higher tumor-suppressor-to-oncogene copy number, more robust tumor-suppressor networks, more self-anti-cancer apoptosis, CD47 suppression, etc) that society has refused to accept. They might have enough reputation to get people to look at these ideas. It won't cure people with stage 5 turbo-cancer a.k.a the walking dead, but hopefully we won't be moving the goal posts _that_ much on them.
At this point, I'm basically telling models to not write any English text or prose. Only write code. They are great at writing code. Not so great at writing good English. In software projects, lengthy comments and docs are an anti-pattern: the software should instead be written to do the right expected thing so that you don't have to think about it. I don't want all these tokens polluting my context, either.
> Review what you just wrote, according to some appropriate list of evaluation criteria that you come up with first
I get better results from these models when I ask for the appropriate list of evaluation criteria with a fresh context. If you pollute the context with its first iteration, then you are likely to get a worse result when you ask it to come up with the criteria with the first version in the context. Context contamination can unintentionally narrow the expertise of the inquiry (even for meat humanoids).
It's unfortunate that Cerebras disabled new sign-ups for their coder plans. GLM-4.7 on Cerebras via OpenRouter used to be absolutely amazing...
I am very eager to see 15,000 tokens/second eventually, like Talaas but for higher intelligence models. I know a few people working on ASICs in this direction including open-source projects. It's all extremely exciting.
There's no reason that ultrasound imaging equipment needs to be expensive. Overall the parts are pretty cheap. I think everyone should have one next to their toothbrush. Whole body ultrasound scans would also be useful, although harder to place inside everyone's homes.
> your body forms and kills tumors all the time. The false positive rate is ridiculous.
Um, that's still a tumor.
I haven't found that to be an issue. Just say what revisions you want. Once you're done, paste it into an LLM to clean it up into a usable prompt.
It's a lot easier to write long messages on a phone with something like Whisper.
I've always been worried about their backend changing and somehow named tags with a previous commit hash working for an attacker to give something you didn't expect for the commit hash.
I like the idea of donating money instead of tokens. I think django contributors are likely to know how to spend those tokens better than I might, as I am not a django core contributor.
Some projects ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46730504 ) are setting a norm to disclose AI usage. Another project simply decided to pause contributions from external parties ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46642012 ). Instead of accepting driveby pull requests, contributors have to show a proof of work by working with one of the other collaborators.
Another project has started to decline to let users directly open issues ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46460319 ).
There's definitely an aspect here where the commons or good will effort of collaborators is being infringed upon by external parties who are unintentionally attacking their time and attention with low quality submissions that are now cheaper than ever to generate. It may be necessary to move to a more private community model of collaboration ( https://gnusha.org/pi/bitcoindev/CABaSBax-meEsC2013zKYJnC3ph... ).
edit: Also I applaud the debian project for their recent decision to defer and think harder about the nature of this problem. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47324087
It would be nice if more businesses embraced email instead of requiring phone calls for basic tasks. Imagine how much more productive we could be if we could just send off a quick email with the information and questions.
Instead, what we're likely going to get are "voice agents" calling each other when we could have just used email instead...
Anyone can generate an alternative chain of sha256 hashes. perhaps you should consider timestamping, e.g.
https://opentimestamps.org/ As for what the regulation says, I haven't looked but perhaps it doesn't require the system to be actually tamper-proof.
Having multiple different distribution channels can solve that problem. Advertisers cannot monopolize all distribution channels simultaneously because of the costs involved (it would be like someone trying to buy the whole economy).
Another option instead of using identity is to use proof of work or hashcash such that anyone who thinks a comment is valuable can use some hash rate to upvote it. It doesn't matter how the content was generated, only that someone thought it was important, and you can independently verify this by checking how much hash effort went into hashing for that comment. This also does not require any identity either.
Another project simply paused external contributions entirely:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46642012Another idea is to simply promote the donation of AI credits instead of output tokens. It would be better to donate credits, not outputs, because people already working on the project would be better at prompting and steering AI outputs.
Wait, is abliteration actually just a branding trick? That doesn't sound correct.
Oh it's much older than 8 years... here is one such proposal from 2011:
https://groups.google.com/g/enzymaticsynthesis/c/6GZT8zFNOfo...I myself was bitten by a radioactive grad student in 2008 that was obsessed with this idea at the time, and have since learned that almost every major household name lab PI has thought about this in one form or another.