mcnichol

Yeah definitely not fascist and I believe that is a control tactic not necessarily an equitability thing.

I don't think we have any evidence that anything will be done fairly. In fact the idea of Capitalism in a "fair system" has been objectively broken as incumbents apply pressure on free markets to suppress competition.

I think all forms have proved they can be broken where they no longer are "playing by the rules".

I was entertaining the hypothetical. I think the biggest unknown I feel which the article gently touches on is the unknown of how deeply this is trusted to make decisions that could be life-changing.

Imagine the danger of an AI model built to scan and understand a state or national level of policy that would be beneficial to society. Not only does that create a vector of manipulation to government that could be blindly trusted but it opens a cyber attack vector from other nation states.

I could see someone coming from a place of good without realizing that these functions are somewhat opaque without ceilings/floors which can increase deviation to elicit hallucinations.

Whether it is intentionally misused or a road to hell paved with good intentions it does feel treacherous. I do think there are many many democratizing aspects it offers but how do we stop mixing the baby and the bath water when we can't tell the difference.

You are referring to gans which have complete understanding of the rules and an api interface to leverage interacting with the world.

While I think there could be an argument made here you are mixing apples and rocks if you believe ChatGPT is using gans.

I hate to be that person but you are showing that you are unable to differentiate between linear regressions, clustering, gradient descent, and generative adversarial networks. You are over your ski-tips and don't see itc

I can indulge the hypothetical and I appreciate your openness to engage in both sides.

I think as you stated, human nature and history is where I am looking at this from. People have a tendency to be unable to sit and do nothing for extended periods of time. I believe we are purpose driven but purpose is pretty loosely defined here.

Indulging the hypothetical (and arguably realistic in some circumstances) that AI replaces a tier of repeatable tasks I believe it would work from the bottom up. Tasks that are extremely repeatable would probably be gone 1:1 and it would be a sliding ratio as complexity increased where having human intervention as a backup becomes justifiable.

This would create a squeeze on the labor force which would bring up the very real and fair question of "How is it that I am unable to survive daily life when 100 - 200 years ago none of this automation / technology existed."

I think this could drive a sort of re-examining of what exists RE: a very inefficient and flawed system with a large amount of people possessing a lot of anxiety and time on their hands. It would be like the Eye of Sauron made up of those who were caught in the crossfire.

On the other side of the haves and have-nots I can imagine there being a very Harrison Bergeron style mindset of trying to popularize pacification until the next great innovation just solves itself.

On the extreme end, I just cannot imagine euthanasia, genocide, or population control schemes. It feels like we have come so far. How could it be possible we regress that far? I could imagine myself not wanting to live through any part of that. This seems like a very extreme and existential point to reach. I am trying to keep my thoughts pinned closer to biological and historical drivers.

I think we are hormone driven chemistry sets. I believe we respond to stimuli. I find it hard to believe anyone at any level could shut off that drive at such a massive scale and accurately predict the other side.

I feel this is merely stating the obvious.

It goes back to the industrial revolution and every revolution before and after. There was a point where they thought a majority of people would be working as switchboard operators and then telephone switching came along. Horses to cars, etc.

Jobs transition, new space is created, people are caught in tbe crossfire of supply and demand curves. Incan agree the bullwhip of this one is going to be aggressive.

I think it is a mistake to bet on AI as a driver of meaningful growth in a commercial capacity in the current state. When the data fed into an AI model is based on real data you can get predictability. When the AI inputs start coming from the AI outputs the wobble is introduced which results inevitably into delirium.

I think the world at large is "learning on the job" what data scientists and others in ai have known for a long, several decades long, time have already known.

I'm not arguing the complexity of hacking a password, I'm familiar. So instead of responding with rainbow tables or how knowing the schema informs you the location of salts for the salted hash (which is the actual proper way), I'll just point to an example.

Look at how RSA is implemented. Look at the intentional obscurity of S tables and lack of detailed information.

There is a reason information is withheld. DB schema is just that, information that increases increases the threat.

And running a DB on someone's infrastructure doesn't necessarily give you access. You need to read up on AuthN and AuthZ.

If you listed an open source example I'd take the time to poke holes in your strawman argument but you honestly just need to take a step back and think about what you are really arguing.

Do you really think not having the schema is as inconsequential as having the schema when attacking something? I mean what is the first step most folks do in reverse engineering? I honestly can't believe I'm having to say this.

I don't want to take away any steam from your sails but giving bad information in regards to case law shouldn't be taken lightly. Your "expert witness" did you a disservice.

Schema is very much a critical field in terms of AuthZ privileges. Just knowing the structure is not far off from knowing the max entropy a password may hold. In regards to InfoSec, table structure is the recon phase which limits effort and minimizes time. Someone with that much time in security knows DBs will be hacked, not if but when. Time is an incredibly important tool which is why we have expirations on so many authN and authZ windows of attack.

I'm glad that you are challenging them but I believe a credible engineer would have made mince meat of your expert and hurt the rest of us who want to see you successful.

It's possible rewriting certain statutes can help us but there is no company worth its salt that would share DB schema.

This is just one big article on survivor bias.

I get what they are saying: There is a difference between theoretical and applied.

I think the OWASP/NIST/InfoSec has always been a bit behind because of this mentality. I think there is a progressive forward looking mindset that is often seen as "mad" or "unhinged" when it's ultimately throwing paint at a wall to see what sticks.

The driver is curiosity but then someone comes along and applies CBA and ROI, and CAC...the person who was curious has left because that wasn't the goal. Eventually something will stick that meets all of those mainstream ideas.

If you think of the body as a computer, it communicates through DNA, a much larger scale of information passing. Binary is just arbitrarily selected because it was there. Should we stop exploring binary computational systems? No but we also don't need all our eggs in one basket.

I'm not sure how I feel about this. On one hand kudos to them for the self-reflection, facing hard truths, and building a really wide set of tools.

But when you look under the hood it's tooling that wraps tooling. The API categorization tool arguably hands off a large portion of the heavy lifting to OpenAI.

"You are a world class categorizer. Fit these APIs into one of these groups."

The rest of the file is just wiring and a little blurring of the lines of model, view, and controller. I saw some testing and was like, okay this is going to be important if you are wrapping a lot of tooling because "change outside of your control" but then it's just a the default contextLoads() functional test Intellij gives that makes sure dependencies exist and nothing fails at compile.

I think the vision is there and it is definitely aligned to the Pareto principle but it feels like the idea was tested that markets aren't interested in maintaining their stuff while internally they haven't even addressed maintaining their own stuff.

Feels like a Catch 22 where if they could address that reason for themselves first then they could probably solve that for other people. But addressing it means having a product that is being used in order to feel the pain and empathize with the end user.

I'll be blunt, a lot of what you explained went over my head.

I saw some charts that expressed 1hz in the A4 range a bit higher but essentially what you explained. The lower in the scale the more cents per hz but each "scale" has 1200 cents broken up evenly per semitone.

We could create a reference chart that shows the "increase" in the scale in hz which would be a logarithmic curve while the cents would be growing linearly based on an underlying logarithmic scale.

In my previous response I was being prickly with the previous responder because they came off with strong "well awkshually..." energy.

I get what they are saying but I don't think it's outlandish to speak in hz when the extra precision from cents is arguably beyond the average musically trained ear.

Now that you are caught up with the rest of us, read my response.

Am I saying I don't understand or am I saying I understand but the response is too nitpicky for me and what I feel is reasonably acceptable by the average person.

At least I know there's one person that gets it.

I've never ran into such brigading on HN before. I really thought I said something non-confrontational at first.

Wait till they get hit with their first domain renewal sniping attack. Then it's spiderman-pointy-finger meme all day when explaining who hurt who.

The way the article read it seemed as they though they had many domains and customers could bring theirs into that ecosystem.

If the customer left it behind they could send it to the wayside.

If they are merely a broker then I agree, I don't see them as rent-seeking. The article left me with the impression that they had a large number of domains they rent out to customers.

I'm not saying I didn't appreciate it. It just read like a story of their journey and reflection.

I think "My journey of learning perfect pitch over 15 years" is more apt

Learn perfect pitch in 15 years sounds more like a step by step article.

I would have clicked both, just expect something closer to the latter.

You clearly do not understand.

They buy 900 domains. They hold 900 domains.

Anyone who wants that domain cannot use it but must rent through them (whom they rent through someone else)

This is textbook rent seeking behavior.