I asked claude to decipher this and it refused. I asked gemini and it was permissible. Very interesting to see ROT-13 banned via Anthropic as a 'prompt injection' risk.
Anecdotes __are__ data. How much weight you ascribe to it as being representative is different. But you cannot disqualify it as 'not data'. It is usually a leading indicator of what could potentially show up in these more robust datasets.
No - because the AI will be super human. No human even at $1mm a year would be competitive with a $100k/yr corresponding AI subscription.
See people get confused. They think you can charge __less__ for software because it's automation. The truth is you can charge MORE, because it's high quality and consistent, once the output is good. Software is worth MORE than a corresponding human, not less.
I am unsure if you're joking or not, but you do have a point. But it's not about quality it's about supply and demand. There are a ton of variables moving at once here and who knows where the equilibrium is.
Why is this being hidden off of the main HN pages? There are clearly enough points for it to be significantly up weighted. I don’t understand the censorship.
As I understand it, HN has a controversial submission detection system of sorts. The exact details elude me, but if a submission gets a lot of comments quickly relative to upvotes, it'll fall off the main page.
Best indicator I've seen is if comments/points ~> 0.9 or so.
It's my understanding mods can undo this "controversial" flag, so that select threads get back onto the main page.
This site has always been easy to co-opt to fascism with their supposedly apolitical outlook. Flagging from unknown accounts easily kills stories of importance, even where they have relation to the supposed interests of the site. Such as the AI altered image being posted by the White House this week.
The idea we have to treat arguments in good faith like the other user in this story excusing fascist death squads show how well this moderation approach aligns with the Thiel-ite sympathies.
In the eyes of some in leadership, tech workers should be apolitical worker drones. Weighing in on politics is for people like David Sacks, Marc Andreesen, Elon Musk.
You are downvoting what is the evidence in front of your eyes. Downvoting the observation does not change the ranking anomaly. If you want trust, you can’t run the front page like this.
You’re being downvoted by bots. HN is rigged and completely compromised. We all need start flagging any non-political content and refuse to discuss anything but ICE. Business cannot continue as normal.
I understand why HN doesn't want to devolve into a political forum—but at it's spirit, HN is supposed to cover topics that "...are of interest to those working in the tech community". The upvotes on a thread like this demonstrates that these are topics that are indeed of interest—so I wish that there was more of an appetite to allow these discussions to play out. Maybe having a limit on the number of posts per day or per week that could make it to the frontpage could give everyone a bit more of what they want.
Personally, the political threads on HN are the ones in which I learn the most by and large. There simply isn't another community on the web that elicits such thought provoking discussion around these types of issues—reddit doesn't even come close. I hope the policy will change in the future; especially during these tumultuous times, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
Most HN members are also well-educated enough to understand the implications of this scenario are more serious than the typical political article. Employment may start being affected, for example. The career decisions you make are already certainly affected if you choose to / choose not toto work somewhere that facilitates this federal agency.
This article is #1 on news.ycombinator.com/active right now. Obviously top of mind for a lot of us right now. Pretty hard to find it without the /active, though.
I think this is an open question still and very interesting. Ilya discussed this on the Dwarkesh podcast. But the capabilities of LLMs is clearly exponential and perhaps super exponential. We went from something that could string together incoherent text in 2022 to general models helping people like Terrance Tao and Scott Aaronson write new research papers. LLMs also beat IMO and the ICPC. We have entered the John Henry era for intellectual tasks...
Very spurious claims, given that there was no effort made to check whether the IMO or ICPC problems were in the training set or not, or to quantify how far problems in the training set were from the contest problems. IMO problems are supposed to be unique, but since it's not at the frontier of math research, there is no guarantee that the same problem, or something very similar, was not solved in some obscure manual.
reply