MrVandemar

Lie to us, and we'll lie to you.

Spy on us, and we'll spy on you.

Poison us, and we'll poison you.

-- The East

I use PHP.

Just as a scripting language on my own laptop, nothing prod. But one thing I notice, even coming back to it after a little while, even after using Python for everything, I find I am effortlessly productive with it.

There was an article I read recently about a blind developer who finds it easy to write in, as the "$" for the variable names makes it easier for him to identify what's going on in any given line of code.

Like any language it has advantages and disadvantages.

Why is this flagged? It's a reasoned statement by a creative person whose artwork has clearly been part of the training data for LLMs, and who is inundated with people sending him AI versions of his own artwork back to him. He provides examples.

Flagging to remove an article from discussion or debate is censorship, regardless of whether the content is palatable to you or not.

When an article is flagged, there should be reasons stated, and the usernames of the accounts that flagged it.

And if the flagging is motivated by attempt to censor, the Internet Points of those accounts should be zeroed.

There should be a mechanism for unflagging, or vouching.

> I'm as complicit, and so are "you" for many people reading this.

But rather than advocating, or even agitating, for a change in the system that perpetuates unacceptable -- and now unavoidable -- climate risk, you seem pretty sanguine about the whole thing.

With bespoke human-crafted em-dashes, not slop-dashes.

> Accessing "non-public" data through that is endictment on their infra security more than it is OpenAI

No, it is not. Medical/health information is pretty much the most sensitive and confidential information possible on a personal level. You do not let a system already known for unwanted intrusion near any such system. Unless, of course, you're a sociopathic reckless money-grubbing cowboy, which is a long-winded way of writing "CEO".

What you are arguing is essentially if people have weak locks, its their fault if they get broken into. Or if a bug doesn't taste bad, then it's their fault if it gets eaten by a bird. This thinking puts the blame on the victim, which is 100% the wrong place.

Yes, I agreed that the Australian Government should have better security, but in government that's actually pretty hard when people see a government contract as license to charge $200 for a hammer. See the Australian Bureau of Meteorology website upgrade for an example of that kind of debacle.

You know what "fair use" sounds like to me?

10%.

Copy 10% of anything, free, knock yourself out. Fair use. Keep it simple for some things: one chapter of a book, maybe.

Copying the whole thing, building an billion dollar industry out of it in a way that kills the industry of the people you stole from, that's offensive, immoral, unethical, and dumb. And it should be illegal, and something that should be proscuted, and CEO's made personally liable for.

10% is fair.

> very stupid (which seems unlikely, the one thing these people don't lack is IQ)

I've seen some extremely smart people do some seriously stupid things. To the point where they use their drive and intelligence to double-down on the stupid where a baseline stupid person would have given up.

> LLMs just change certain parts of the equation. For example, code writing is far less of a bottleneck than before, so "we can just try with a throwaway impl and see if this works" is suddenly economically viable.

The economic costs of LLM use have been abstracted away, but they're still very much there. The ecological cost of building and running data centres will be a pretty heavy economic cost somewhere in the future. It's not obvious, but it still exists.

(I'm not dumping on LLMs — otherwise I wouldn't even be here. I'm not a glutton for punishment. I know well that HN users excited about LLM use now vocally outweigh, and are pretty intolerant of people who are more on the cautious/negative end of the spectrum. I don't want that trouble in my life).

The solving of the mathematics problems is largely a marketing stunt. It's a great headline though.

It was also deeply uneconomic, and didn't change the world, or materially advance our understanding. Mostly it's demoralised the mathematicians already working to solve those problems. They're not going to say 'That's great, I can now devote my energies to another problem', they're more likely to look at 10 years of poorly paid intellectually rigorous work and go home and kick the dog. For a headline.

"Flagged"?

How is this post breaking any guidelines? How does a reasoned essay about LLM use not belong on HN?

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

Every Summer now is going to be the hottest Summer on record. We're at the top of the hill, heading down, picking up speed.

> "An emergency? Ha! It's about time the people who run this planet of yours realised that to be dependent on a mineral slime just doesn't make sense."

— Robert Banks Stewart (1975)

Because browsers, especially phone browsers, are broken.

A lot of older websites will look like this on a phone, because they don't have the viewport meta tag, which wasn't a thing until mobile phones became sophisticated web browsers.

Firefox reader mode will probably render it OK.

It seems every article about LaTeX is a rallying call for Typst fans to inject their opinion of how amazing Typst is into a largely unrelated discussion, instead of reading and commenting on the actual article.

The point is that there are unintended consequences, a real cost to people who are already struggling. The broader disability community is already noticing, rather sourly, that accessibility for "AI" is suddenly a prime concern, where they have been struggling for decades to get any attention or consideration for their own needs.

What is better for everyone is if the people building the systems start with considering accessibility beforehand instead of shipping something broken then fixing it.