bastawhiz

Desk View is a really cool feature. It's not something I'd use every day but it seems like an obvious thing that solves an annoying occasional problem.

You can run a model at 1000t/s on a low and android phone. The output will be dogshit bad, but it'll pump tokens like nobody's business. The problem with what you're proposing is that there's no baseline definition of what those tokens are (for what purpose? of what quality?). And pinning that to a certain model or level of correctness means your benchmark becomes almost immediately obsolete.

You literally can't do anything useful with Gemini (as a Google Assistant replacement) without granting it access to everything. And I mean that in the most literal sense possible. It doesn't know the weather, the time, it can't play music, nothing.

Taken in the most literal sense possible, if you're using Gemini in any capacity today, it's authorized to use your photos to serve you personalized ads.

There's a difference between putting dishes in the dishwasher and doing the dishes. I'm glad to put trash in the trash can. I'm not willing to take the trash down two flights of stairs and find the right dumpster. I'm willing to put my sheets in the washing machine. I'm not willing to do the laundry.

As a motorcyclist, I am confident that I'd rather trust software to drive near me than the median motorist. I've ridden in a Waymo and I've ridden in the back of countless rideshares driven by humans, and I've never had to complain that my Waymo was speeding or running stop signs.

> These are not "empty promises" more so than long term visions (that do manifest) sold as short term shippable options.

By that logic any lie is simply a promise that hasn't been fulfilled yet.

> cars purchased in 2016 can't do this, sure I'll concede.

He made the promise in 2019! HW3 will almost certainly never have unsupervised FSD (let alone FSD without a human in the car), and HW4 didn't ship until what, 2023? There's more model years in existence where that promise is flatly broken than there are where it's maybe a possibility someday down the road.

But he also promised FSD rideshare in 2016, which arguably makes it even worse of a broken promise. Ten years later not only is it still a broken promise, they're actively working to ship a product that isn't what they promised.

He also has a track record of making promises that he never makes good on, or intends to make good on. In fact, almost all of the things you call achievements are things he did without making broad promises.

I simply won't believe they'll sell a version that leaves the ground until I see someone who obviously isn't working for Tesla with one. I'd be surprised if the FAA didn't have something to say about it. I just don't believe for a second that a stiff wind or a low ceiling or a power line (public road or not) or a very obese driver with nobody in the passenger seat isn't going to turn a very expensive car into a very expensive upside down piece of scrap. SpaceX has had enough explosions resulting from COPVs that I can't imagine these actually getting into the hands of people with more money than sense. It's a compelling marketing gimmick that can't be real.

But practicality aside, you have to be an absolute fool to believe any promises Elon makes at this point. Whether it's the automatic charging cable snake, or your car picking you up and dropping you off at the airport, or renting out your car as a self driving ride share, or your cybertruck also being a boat, or the dozens of other empty promises that he's made, there's just no reason to think he's telling the truth about anything until you can try it for yourself.

I almost said gigawatts, but that's not what has to happen. That's thousands of acres of solar panels (terrestrially, anyway). You just aren't getting that many panels on a single orbiting structure. Unless the satellites are powered by nuclear fuel or we come up with something very new and different, there won't be gigawatt space data centers.

As soon as we figure out how to build a practical and cost effective way to radiate megawatts of heat in a vacuum I'm sure we will!

> there is a real human there and not automated surveillance.

In this example there was a real human who reviewed the prompts that were flagged by the model. I can't agree that a model flagging something concerning to a human is worse than a human reviewing absolutely everything.

> AI companies have no accountability as proven by the hugging face incident.

This is already a problem with human systems. See: Vaastamo

Moreover, that's the whole point. You're arguing against accountability. If some kid tells ChatGPT he's going to shoot up his school, and then does, I feel strongly that OpenAI could and should have done something. I do not believe OAI is absolved of responsibility when it's clear they could have prevented death.

> E2e encrypted messaging is hated because it cant be automatically surveyed. The idea it needs to be for law does not hold up as it doesnt for your human examples either.

Your argument contradicts itself. There's nothing that allows a nation state to access an LLM back end but not a system designed for humans to interact.

> Almost all of these arguments boil back down to the “if you dont have anything to hide…” which id hope on hn we know is dangerous

That's not it at all. Your arguments are promised on the idea that messages sent to a third party should be treated specially because there's no human involved.

You might disagree with the idea that uploading CSAM to Adobe shouldn't result in a cop at your door, but you're compelling a group of people to operate software on your illegal content. It's not a dumb file store, it's doing work. LLMs are no different.

This has nothing to do with local models. There's no overlap in what using a service with a ToS implies compared to what you do on your own hardware. If print photos at CVS versus at home in a dark room, those are two very different situations with different expectations.

Devil's advocate: if I tell my therapist or my lawyer that I'm going to murder someone, they're obligated to report it. If I use my AI as a therapist or lawyer, why should the company that provides that service not be held to the same standard?

LLMs aren't email or file storage. AI labs aren't just shuttling bytes around, they're interpreting those bytes and taking action based on them. These models _already_ react viscerally in response to users saying disturbing things: the only practical difference is the ability (or obligation) for the model to escalate that concern. I'm not sure the ethics we hold AI companies to should be different than if a human being was typing out the responses.

Privacy is obviously hugely important, but this isn't the government surveiling every message. It's companies having an obligation to flag real, credible threats according to the law, which is a very different problem space.

> There was one annoying limitation. I had to submit a special request before I could send emails to new addresses that had not previously messaged me.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding but this sounds absolutely wild. What?

I have such mixed feelings on this.

Last week, I replaced 100kb of React code for a JavaScript based date picker with an <input type=datetime-local>. It's part of an accessibility project, and the old date picker wasn't good for many reasons. What a win! This input type didn't land in browsers other than Chrome until a few years ago, and my support matrix didn't officially allow me to use it until pretty recently. By and large, this is a win on paper.

Within 24 hours a customer using Firefox and NVDA (a screen reader) wrote in to say they hated the change and asked me to bring the old date picker back.

How am I supposed to win here?

I'm confused by the charts comparing it to Opus 5.5. It looks like slightly lower accuracy for the same cost along most comparisons. Am I reading that right?

Is it just the benchmarks? Because otherwise it suggests it's twice as chatty as Opus for a comparable output... Which kind of defeats the purpose