uncomputation

The scape goating of delivery robots (vandalism, destruction, or obstruction) as trying to stick it to Big Tech and “capitalism” is an immediate tell of an underdeveloped political education. She certainly must be a communications professor.

Wow, fascinating stuff. A whole lot more than I realized but all of it makes sense. Really takes me back to the disc days. MPEG-2: haha! Thanks so much for sharing your story

Attributing every non-left wing position to “Fox News” is an insanely naive and childish political education. And embarrassingly ironic on an article about Japan. So Japan has Fox News too?

Fascinating, how does (did) one become a DVD programmer? I wondered as a child. What’s the tech stack like there? And were there DVD programming studios/companies, or was it more of a freelance model, or employed by the big studios in-house?

It is a crazy idea when they’re not your work in the first place. David Lynch made his movies. The museum didn’t make the sculptures.

Good for Japan. They are being forward thinking and protective over their existing job supply. America is a great example of what happens with too much offshoring and lax immigration policies. Especially with the effects of AI, there are no longer enough jobs to go around.

Hmm… training data siphon?

Really embarrassing to see Carmack fall so low and have such little respect for the art of programming he once advanced. Unlike swords and martial arts in combat, code is still needed. It’s not like there’s some new medium that doesn’t use code at all. It’s just a question of who is writing that code: a human or a statistical model. Guns superseded swords, cars superseded horses, but coding agents haven’t superseded code itself. A better analogy would be if, instead of guns, we ended up using advanced kung-fu fighting robots. Which would actually be sick…

> I like restrictions of another sort more. Namely, restricting the use of AI in corporate environments so that it does not destroy the economy as it advances.

Careful, you’re making too much sense. The big model providers would much rather the ball be in their court. “Deceleration” meaning Anthropic and OpenAI offer less capabilities for more money in service of “protecting humanity from extinction” rather than penny pinching. A lot of “AI research” coming out of these “labs” (increasingly enterprise) seems to be more driven by a cost benefit analysis from suits rather than genuine contributions to the field. I think the last true innovation was the idea of using doom and ending the human race as a marketing gimmick, which strangely seems to have worked in setting the narrative and captivating the sci-fi imaginations of journalists and techies alike.

How is SwiftUI dated? It uses a declarative model. I don’t see UI framework paradigms shifting that much.

So what took an autonomous agentic system using a significantly more powerful internal model, totaling multi-millions of dollars of compute in training and inference, was likely to already be solved by a team of a few humans with an orders of magnitude smaller LLM budget, had OpenAI not been foaming at the mouth to jump the shark and claim “AI solves Millenium Problem.”

Also it sounds like the human research effort spanned weeks if not years from Tristan’s statement so it is extremely likely the work and prompts of these human researchers was used in the OpenAI knock-off.

Maybe I am pessimistic but it seems no one cares about climate change these days. All of Los Angeles is sweltering now. Just pointing fingers and dropping individual names while the world continues to heat slowly. Any suggestions to get involved are welcome, I don’t want to be just a complainer.

Clickbait title and OP didn’t disclose this is his site. Flagged.

> what are billions of people doing on Facebook if it's harmful? I don't know.

This is extremely naive and akin to asking "why do people drink if it’s bad for you then??" Popular != healthy

It's the television and the Internet. It's that simple.

There’s a more generalizable work on this recently for those expecting more. https://github.com/leochlon/hallbayes

A lot of pearl clutching over extremely average marketing material.

“Bans ByteDance” might be better wording.

Wow, this might be one of the worst PR decisions in recent history.

> they don't refute that they did betray it

They do. They say:

> Elon understood the mission did not imply open-sourcing AGI. As Ilya told Elon: “As we get closer to building AI, it will make sense to start being less open. The Open in openAI means that everyone should benefit from the fruits of AI after its built, but it's totally OK to not share the science...”

Whether you agree with this is a different matter but they do state that they did not betray their mission in their eyes.

Can the title be updated to include the “Meet”? Otherwise it’s a bit ominous…

The reporting on this study is conflating sentiment with plot structure, which misrepresents the study.

See for example, Frankenstein. The sentiment rises slightly during the Creature’s narration to Victor of his circumstances - likely the narration of the French family he was “living”/stowing away with - but that’s certainly not a “rise” in the sense Oedipus rises to noble status. It’s hard to interpret Frankenstein as anything other than the protagonist’s consistent and tragic downfall (riches to rags in this analysis).

Not sure if that’s fundamentally a problem trying to extrapolate plot beats from sentiment alone, or a bit of less than accurate journalism.

TLDR:

Word standardizes text through:

- Document templates

- English as lingua franca

- Auto correct and completion

Whether or not you agree (I personally do not find it convincing) it up to you, but there’s a summary because the article is very long-winded.

The internet is not centralized. It is literally the largest decentralized network in existence. A network of networks with no central hub.

Seems intermittent. Sometimes a refresh will work to display files and commit history.

You have it backwards on two counts. First count is the point of POSIX is any OS vendor doesn’t need to worry about any other OS compatibility. Just implement POSIX interfaces. Second count is that is OP’s exact point: it never has been done before, because too many OS vendors give POSIX very little thought. This helps realize the original vision of POSIX.