srdjanr

To me it's obvious that anything related to caching has little to do with the model itself. And it's nice to know from the title that you could only be affected if you used this model.

Isn't whole CS basically pure math?

And all illustrations have the AI look (they're not AI images, but AI-generated SVG or Powerpoint or something)

You'd only get plain unstyled rendering with browser support. And at that level you don't need any complexity from Hugo or Obsidian - you only need a very simple script to convert md to plain html. No config or anything to maintain.

I think a better comparison is website builders, and people still paid web devs.

It is just a band-aid.

We noticed that some equations only make sense if mass is greater than what we'd expect from what we can see. So for now we pretend that there's this dark matter that we can't see, and with it all math so far checks out.

But we don't know if that missing mass exists at all, or if some formulas are wrong. So it's definitely a "hack", but it works for now and we don't have anything better. And we do expect to find an explanation at some point.

I don't think the idea is to give agents raw data, but for it to run many queries. Humans also don't look at terabytes of raw logs.

Paying 20$ per month to double my productivity, answer many of my health questions with good accuracy, help me with DIY projects around the house and do almost as good of a job as a psychotherapist is trickle down for me.

And you don't even have to pay - there are perfectly fine free tiers and open weight models.

A few people spend all their focus and tokens on one problem, and after some time I expect one of them to get at least closer to a solution. They can either work independently, or even better they team up and create a shared scratchpad for their agents. I don't see limits to scaling this, compared to OpenAI running however many subagents per problem.

And that multiply those few people by number of different problems.

If LLMs aren't an example of trickle down, I don't know what is

Did they force anyone to focus on reviewing those results instead of other ones? People choose to focus on them for a reason.

I think it's always better to publish preliminary results early (as long as you clearly say so, and they did), and let mathematicians decide which of those are worth focusing on.

But distributed over thousands of people, I see it happening. Maybe a bit slower, but still.

I don't think a system maximizing enjoyment would be any better. Why would anyone choose to work with sewage? Or why would most developers choose to align with rest of the team or with user needs, when programming is most enjoyable?

I might avoid it because in reality the odds of it finding "something" are high, and the odds of that "something" being benign are high.

And then it's likely the options are 1) get a non-risk-free test, or 2) have constant anxiety about it (at least in my case)

You could only realistically detect this in a lab.

You need to actively listen at multiple frequencies at the same time (gsm/lte/5g have many different bands, + wifi/bt at 2.4/5/6 ghz and their bands). And you need to remove interference from all other devices to conclude that signal is coming from ledger (so any home isn't an option).

On top of that, you need to be listening at the exact time it exfiltrates data (it might intentionally wait for some time after using device), and you need to have the compromised device (which the hardest part here - you could test 100s of devices and not find anything).

So I think this could only be caught with a large scale, recurring lab testing, far from "trivial to detect".

> AI companies achieve their stated goals

If those goals are fully eliminating need for human labor, then I agree it probably won't be good for most people. But that will probably take at least decades.

Anything short of that, and I think economy will be pretty similar to what it is now. You still need working class and need it to be productive, so you do need them to be reasonably happy, housed, healthy, and you need good infrastructure. With lower cost for all this, why wouldn't things improve, like all times throughout history?

Surely that wouldn't last long if OAI/Anthropic stopped?

What if there's a few year downturn, so they lay off and want to hire back when it passes? Force them to hire offshore instead?

Of course what parent comment said doesn't apply to 100% of businesses, bud I'd say it does apply to at least 80-90%. So I agree with them that it wouldn't work very effectively.

Apart from what others said about using more intelligent models instead of cheaper ones, token usage is also increasing a lot. Classic Jevons paradox

I don't think people trying to please the algorithm are interested in freedom of expression instead of just money/"fame"

I don't think AI will make that true more than it is now. More investment in security should on average lead to better security, with or without AI.

Also he's 16. I'd definitely be less willing to push back (especially on something like this) at his age

What if you want them to look up some papers? You need to allow some kind of internet access, which then might be exploited

With the Iran war now we should also boycott all US companies by this logic, and I don't see many people doing that

In this case nature was just indifferent to transplants as they weren't a thing even 100 years ago.

As others have explained, foreign cells usually meant trouble, so fighting them by default was a good choice. And there was no pressure to allow transplants specifically, because they didn't exist.

Also, (I think) you usually need a transplant later in life, after reproduction, so too late for evolution to affect it. So even if we had transplants for millions of years, it might not have made much difference either.

I missed that this is happening, is it really? I thought it's 5X for everyone

I like the pragmatic approach to backwards compatibility (accepting relatively rare breakage that's not too hard to fix) instead of requiring 100% compatibility without exceptions

I agree if you one-shot something, but that hasn't been my experience at all (unless the initial prompt is so detailed that creating it took considerable time).

For me it's more like being a chef but having a cook to cut up things and start cooking them, but you decide when it's done, what spices to put, and how to serve it - arguably the most fun and creative part.

I think it captures it perfectly, and the question is what are tomatoes here. Is it being challenged intellectually and proud of solving a puzzle, or is it getting praised, valued or paid?

People didn't stop solving sudokus when sudoku solvers appeared.