awongh

Personally, when it comes to media and creative things, I want to hear from other humans. It could be other humans using AI as a tool, but I'm not interested in the Meta AI account slop they were promoting. Or the Spotify algorithm optimized playlist artists.

I don't think everyone will agree with me, and we might have truly AI generated movie and pop stars, but I think most people won't want synthetic art- it's missing the point of what art is for, for expressing something about humans.

> will solve everything that makes life worthwhile

Like programming? Or what else, I'm not sure I understand what that would mean.

You (not responding to you directly simias) are truly delusional if you think what's happening isn't extremely concerning and dystopian in a lot of ways.

And there will be a lot of ego death, esp. with people deep in a lot of kowledge work.

But if you claim that AI is absolutely a waste and bad for humanity I feel sorry for you if you can't see how incredible it is that we have this new technology. -That it will most likely solve some very core issues humans are working on, and that it is a kind of evolutionary moment in human history, creating artificial intelligence. I feel sorry that you can't see past your own nose to see the bigger picture in that sense.

I tend to think big changes will always make things better and worse at the same time. If you look at the long horizon of history (100s of years) it appears that it makes things better on balance. But who really knows for sure what will happen.

> real concerns about whether the environment on Earth can sustain the impact of human society in its current form

There are two different groups I think. One is not having kids because of environmental issues, but I think there's a larger group not having kids because of systemic societal issues that make it hard to have kids. (sometimes it's the same group but not always)

So part of what I was pointing out is that when people say "we need less people" they aren't implying "wow, I'm glad the population is shrinking" they're really saying, "less people need to be born in the future"- which probably isn't true.

> and the population is an obvious lever to scale that impact

Also, it's not obvious, since, with the exception of China, no one actually meant to do this. It might actually lead to a lot of human misery, the same as climate change might do, so it's not clear that having less people in this specific way is a net good- for example countries like Japan completely collapsing in on themselves and going extinct. I think what you meant by smaller population was just have the same exact society but thinned out, but that's not what this next chapter of degrowth looks like. The boomers who insist on their full pensions at 60 are pretty much killing the youngest generation and leaving them with nothing, and to a certain extent everyone is being rational actors- there's no reasonable way out of the problem.

Yes, and, many many billions (trillions?) of dollars have been lost because the programming language couldn't be changed. Both things can be true.

The racist part is thinking that the confucianist misogynistic hyper capitalistic culture is worth protecting in the first place, as if Bangladeshi, Indonesian or Filipino people living in the same country as you will somehow be the thing that is the end of "Koreanness" and not all of the culture's inherent issues itself- the other kind of end of Koreanness (the implied preferred end) is when almost everyone who is Korean dies out. (Which, to be clear, is not limited to Korea- it's the same set of issues everywhere people complain about "immigrants")

Even if there's a lot of scientific evidence, statistical proof etc. it's sort of surprising to me that when chatting with people all over the world (in dense cities and also in non-dense areas) how often I hear the sentiment that "there are too many people" and get the sense that they do mean that there's too many people in the world (not just within the surrounding 5-10km which might actually be true).

This might also be one of those things that aligns with people's experience of the world, and the de-population thing is inherently counterintuitive unless you are, by definition, outside the norm- that is, you would only ever notice this if you live where people already don't live. (rural Japan, etc.)

> We recruited 12 healthy men (mean age 27) who had several years of sports background and who ran with a heel strike pattern

I wonder how much of this has to do with possibly not-that-well-trained runners and or gait inefficiencies.

All elite marathons are now won with big cushy shoes. But those runners might be forced to wear them so it’s hard to come to any conclusions from that.

But at the very least if it was way less efficient to have highly cushioned shoes I think we would probably see that at the top level.

The study is also suspect because overall running efficiency changes drastically between trained and untrained runners and it doesn’t seem like they accounted for that.

I'd really like to know what the workflow for this is. In terms of the prompt, but also specifically in terms of which part of the decompilation process the model is using- I assume a standard decompiler is used, then what happens? How is the code rebuilt, what are the possible mistakes the AI can make, and what does the result actually look like?

> So in that way, the Deepseek models are heavily subsidized as well, with the possibility of them being served by a different company that paid nothing to develop them.

Has anyone seen the neo-cloud profit margin on deepseek? I wonder if the deepseek served API prices account for the training cost? Because they don't / have not raised the money to fund their future operation / training- and they depend on that cashflow for now? That would suggest a really high profit margin on inference only.

> There is a science behind getting computers to produce reliable and correct results.

You've somehow summed up the entire debate around AI here, but seemed to have missed the point as well.

Alignment is pretty hard!

I actually don't think this is so deep- you couldn't curse on broadcast TV and basically because Instagram is an ad platform you aren't supposed to say "bad" things on there either.

There's been endless debates here about moderation vs. censorship- on the spectrum of Hackernews to 4chan. Calling the Hackernews moderation rules "censorship" would also not be reasonable- nor do people want to visit 4chan because it's "free speech".

I think it's actually a really nice workaround that human language and english is flexible enough that we can still say exactly what we mean in a different way and everyone knows what we are talking about.

I fundamentally don't think the platforms want to get rid of the engagement these topics bring, (the last round of criticism being that they want divisive topics on the platform) and if and when they do it won't look like changing "kill" to "unalive"- the algorithm will simply be directed to silence the topic. Many such examples in China. We should be angry about the censorship we don't see and can't detect as easily instead.

It states in the article *[our lawyer] advised us that [...] the judges would be extremely deferential to the Rodin Museum and would grant it the benefit of any doubts* but doesn't dare to say why they would be deferential.... It's probably because these high level cultural institutions basically get to do whatever they want... France definitely loves their institutions.