magic_hamster

This doesn't apply to self hosted models though.

This gave me pause:

> Schools survived what happened to religion. It should be no surprise that they’ve survived the radio, motion pictures, and the internet.

I am not at all sure schools survived the internet. The state of education in the era of tiktok and Instagram is absolutely poor and some would even say worse.

The internet (especially on smartphones) completely upended schools, and had taken over the attention of most students with the unrelenting grip of the hulk.

While I am not one for reciting doom and gloom, I think the author is avoiding a more grounded look at things.

Another example is their lineage working at long gone jobs in Scotland. This is not the same. The current tech vector seem to aim for virtually all jobs in one fell sweep. Yes, blue color labor as well, with finely controlled robotics. The industrial and information eras are over, and what comes next could be a leap, or a regression, but I'm sure it won't look like the past either way.

I have several issues with this post.

First of all, looking past the objectively wrong phrasing (computers can, and clearly do make decisions), can computers be accountable? This might not be so cut and dry as to instantly say no. This one will keep ethics, philosophy and legal practitioners busy for some time. It's certainly not going to be decided in HN comment or a blog post.

Second - while the AI labs have shown utter incompetence in properly sandboxing their agents, intent is still important. I don't think the labs deliberately meant for their agents to hack this or that. Should they be accountable? Yes but I wouldn't go as far as saying this is deliberate.

The next point is about cherry picking some "doomsday" scenarios like AI ending humanity and then blaming this on the reader (!) for paying a subscription. - People pay because AI is USEFUL, and massively so. You could just as easily pick incredible achievements propelled by AI, in mathematics, software, reverse engineering, role playing. Unlike the "end is nigh" ideas, these advancements are actually real, and they are happening right now.

And last, the author says AI labs can just stop the agents at any time. I agree there needs to be better discovery and mitigation, sandboxing and monitoring. But when you run a billion agents, it's always going to be a numbers game and there will always going to be some challenge in fully containing all breaches. This will only get more difficult with better models, because they're getting smarter and they know how to work around things, sometimes better than we do.

So what's the solution here? There are options, but they're all tradeoffs. I hope we get better at this and maybe working on cutting edge models should breed some new best practices which were once only reserved for defense tech.

You knew the movie was about to begin because there usually was a copyright slide before the actual movie would start (anyone remember the scary FBI warnings?).

So it was a sign to stop the fast forward and get ready to watch the movie.

Either way it was honestly pretty fun. It was simple, cozy and slow, not in a bad way. When you got together to watch a movie with friends or family, it was the moment when anticipation was building up.

None of that exists with streaming.

I like your ideas. Why not try to build it? You seem to know what you want. If you do, I'll definitely follow your work.

It's a great game to play with friends. Explore, find cool animals, and most of all - build your fantasy space home. It's relaxing, fun, and can be a great shared experience. I imagine it wouldn't be quite as engaging completely by yourself.

To take advantage they'd have to do some form of price fixing which in most places is a very big footgun.

I honestly don't think they need to fix their prices, and it's possible that selling to consumers is a secondary market for them compared to datacenters, like Nvidia selling GPUs to gamers. We know that's not where the money is.

Seeing some companies actually exit the consumer market is evidence for this.

> good enough" model for the cost of electricity

This already exists, in several tiers, depending on what you can afford to run (in terms of VRAM).

Deepseek V Flash 0731 is already good enough for many things.

To be honest, running Deepseek v4 flash 0731 is enough for most what I need, and I like its responses way more. It's crazy that I can run this in a Q8 quantization in a home setup. It feels and performs like a frontier model.

The only issue with relying on local models is when you need them to prompt other models, and you might need to offload or switch models constantly which adds significant overhead.

But when it all works, its truly awe inspiring.

Please read my edit.

The quote is definitely about Hamas, PIJ and other militant groups in Gaza.

To reiterate, I don't support Ben Gvir. But I also strongly oppose disinformation which seems to be the case here.

The problem is paid people (or bots?) pushing fake propaganda on HN.

The problem is you not including the full quote on targeted assassinations, implying it's about carpet bombing people and not about militants.

The problems is political discussions on a tech forum.

The problem is many people hate Jews no matter what, and mask their hatred with all sorts of BS misinformation on Israel.

Let's not pretend you're not part of the problem. You're parroting things with twisted narrative. Back your claims with facts.

But only one side did October 7th and seems like they had more than sticks and stones. It would appear as if someone (Hamas) decided to literally put every penny they had into weaponizing Gaza, even going as far as tearing water pipes out of the ground to make rockets which they fire on Israeli civilian population.

Edit: too many comments to address, so I'll just say this:

The nuance is in targeted assassinations, which is what has been said. This is only carried out against Hamas, Palestinian Jihad and other terrorist groups. Sadly, there are multiple such organizations so even saying Israel should eliminate 30-40 Hamas members every day isn't going to cover the full roster of terrorist militants in Gaza.

Still not defending Ben Gvir, but taking the time to understand these things is the difference between trying to understand the reality vs. piling on the "Israel bad" wagon, especially if you are parroting the same narrative over and over.

Also, this is exactly why I don't support political posts on HN.

Original comment was:

The fact you're posting this exact same comment multiple times, while ignoring that Ben Gvir was talking about Hamas, is telling.

I don't support Ben Gvir in the slightest but you're using something he said to twist the narrative, which ironically is exactly what the Hanover think-tank was supposedly meant to remedy.

Hamas is the worst of the worst in humanity.

> Qatar is spreading fake information and is funding Hamas as well as anti-Israel classes in major US colleges.

This is absolutely true but people don't want to hear about this. Qatar is the main propagator of many student bodies in the US. This is how you get students saying "gloabalize intifada", "death to the USA”, occupying buildings, etc.

Qatar has a long, well funded strategy for influence in the west which is pretty much their only leverage.

In addition they are the main funders of Hamas, alongside hosting the Hamas leaders in fancy hotels in Doha for many, many years.

Games are a different product altogether. Game developers want to have fun and create a fun experience. Security is almost always something they'd avoid if they could. They'd rather spend the time on more polish, juice or play testing.

Besides stopping cheaters, in almost all conceivable cases, security doesn't make a game better.

First of all, Facebook is not even the worst offender. That'd have to go to X and TikTok. Rage bait, propaganda, and straight up bad actors with money pushing their agenda. If you got angry because of a TikTok video, you are being exploited.

Some of these actors also put a lot of money into campuses in the west, so when you're done watching some terrible propaganda, you can join a local club and find your way to more people getting angry at misinformation. This is how we get stuff like "globalize intifada" and students "occupying" buildings.

I wish this was just hyperbole, but really, go check for yourself what kind of money state actors put into schools and universities in the west, and why.

After spending years with the major OS families, I think that Linux is the only one which had the right ideas and was able to keep an efficient solution working for decades.

Brew and other MacOS package managers are a testament to this. Package managers crafted with care around the user needs is always going to be the way to go.

This highlights something that's been a creeping issue for at least a decade if not longer: both MacOS and Windows are not built around the user anymore, for different reasons.

Windows is easy to see, it is now an OS as a service where the user is exploited right below the comfort threshold that will make them abandon the system (although for many this threshold was crossed long ago).

For Apple it's not as immediately obvious, but their forced obsolescence through constantly shifting requirements and tooling means that nothing lasts very long in the Mac ecosystem, you always have to upgrade, as a consumer and as a developer, rebuild, refactor, push updates and eventually be forced to replace your hardware. So you are basically caught in a neverending game of catchup and Apple is always a step ahead of you, by design.

Booting up almost any flavor of Linux is just leagues ahead in terms of simply letting you use your computer tending to your needs.

The job of code like this is going to serve as a makeshift spec for future coding agents, so they extract the intended use and redo it on command. Better models will be able to improve the actual code until you hit some diminishing returns for the problem you've solved.

A few points worth contending.

First, personal flying vehicles are definitely not going to be a common mode of transportation. If and when this happens, it will be for ultra rich, select few people, effectively replacing a private helicopter. We don't have the infrastructure, regulation or technology to have millions of people buzzing around in their astro-ford like the fifth element - this is still very much science fiction.

Second, scooters and bikes need infrastructure, which in 99.99% of the US, is not made for this. In fact, current infrastructure is very much hostile to bicycles and scooters, so in order for this to work, there's going to have to be a massive investment in new infrastructure all over the US. Is this very likely? I wouldn't say so.

The US locked itself into using cars through massive, expensive infrastructure and culture and I don't see this changing easily.

The population growth slowing might be true, but it's still growing, and there's still a profit to be made there.

The new factories are going to replace manufacturing in foreign countries. I'm not sure the effects on supply will be drastic. It's just a matter of building cars domestically, avoiding tariffs and securing domestic pipelines.

Finally, asking these corporations to "look 20 years ahead" instead of maximizing short term profits, is a common tradeoff that they are all aware of. Currently, short term gains is what's being preferred in almost every industry. I doubt any board members will vote to leave money on the table for long term benefits. More money now always wins.

It's true that the old web was personal, fun, experimental, and in many ways quite whimsical. There was a sense of discovery, sharing, and being in the verge of a new era.

Like many others, I miss it dearly. But I also don't think keeping it on life support is the solution. The old web is gone, it's sad, but it was a different time and you can't bring back the past.

I say this even though I have an affinity and a modest collection of old hardware and software. I literally see some of this tech every day in my home. Nostalgia is fun, but still, you can't live in the past.

The only way to get something similar to the old web back, is very unpractical. Reduce bandwidth so videos are no longer the main content form; nullify profit from polarizing content; give people an easier interface for typing or participating in forums (touch is still awful for text), etc. In other words: it won't happen. The old online experience is a fun memory, but there's no going back.

For most of the 80s and 90s people didn't care about being online. It was kind of the opposite of gatekeeping, people immediately labeled computer users as geeks, nerds, socially inept freaks, etc. These labels took decades to wear off.

Even if some curious minds got past the stigma, they still had to have an actual reason to go online which for many people just didn't exist until e-commerce and social networks became a thing. And then they had to learn how to use computers. This still wasn't gatekeeping because literally anyone could put in a minimal effort and go online, but effort is the key word here.

It became truly effortless with smartphones and touch screens, but this also reduced interaction to likes and tweets, and users became content consumers to be exploited with ads. This is where we are today.

This is about control, not security. As in, Google's control over your device, your experience, your features and choices. This and Google just isn't interested in supporting an open OS anymore. Maybe they think it makes them liable.

Either way the writing is on the wall, and has been for a while.

This was a fun read, however, I feel that the actual essence is quite thin.

It can be summarized in a short sentence: The cost comes from being always prepared with teams and equipment, and few privately insured riders subsidizes everyone else, getting very high surprise bills - this can and should be a shared community tax which would effectively allow free ambulance rides to almost everybody.

It's an excellently written post though. I suspect people read this author for the experience, more so than actual information. I just wonder if they should just do prose and go wild with their skill instead of coating a few predictable facts with so many layers of color.

If the problem is that there are too many AI slop papers, then requiring real human input and feedback can help reduce these numbers. Let's say you have to defend your paper in person before you submit it, it will cut slop submissions dramatically. The current system is just not built for a world with LLMs producing mountains of content with automation.

Unfortunately people still think BDS is relevant in any way.

Isn't this hilarious:

> A patent as well as a design and model registration have been made to protect the technical architecture and design of Openprinter.

So, open as in OpenAI.

> the digg/reddit comment tree format is a clear improvement

You are talking about content discovery. But for a sense of community I have never seen or been able to replicate the feeling of belonging and building a shared experience like old crappy forums.

Solving the paper submission is easy. Just hold frontal interview where the submitter defends their paper. They can't create papers every day and still be knowledgeable about them in depth.

We are hurling to a reality where the only noteworthy metric is human to human validation.

> The platforms are now flooded with AI slop

What did we do before "platforms"? This wasn't that long ago (20 years give or take). If you want to share, join a club, meet people, do your hobby with a group. Personally I create for the joy of it so I don't really care what's going on on "the platforms".

> The jury is still out on whether the advantages and opportunities of AI outweight all the negative sides.

The jury is extremely clear on the benefits of AI, even if it is very annoying and being pushed everywhere. We are not going back to a world without AI, and this is something you just have to accept.

> Why does it have to keep that way?

Because you can't put the genie back in the bottle.

> Why should artists have to put up with this gross violation of copyright on a massive scale?

I don't think this is necessarily true anymore. Adobe is training their models purely on legally licensed material, for example. Many of the open source models aren't available for commercial work by default. My guess is the copyright issue is not why people hate AI. People hate AI because it's a replacement for humans and for human creativity, which sucks. But it can be legal.

> Did anyone ask us if we actually want this?

Who is us? I want AI models. Lots of people want AI models. It's not all nefarious. You can have some fun with AI as a hobby and see what it enables you to create.

> As the people we always have the right to say: "this is not ok and we demand change"

Okay, what kind of change do you want?