reisse

Eh, have you checked the repo? Thinkrail is Typescript + Bun + Electrobun, and UI is written in React, which is pretty much web stack.

Yeah, it's happening in the wild already. Seen more cases like that.

Because Polymarket US is a separate, regulated entity.

> consistently do 50%+ annual returns over the past 15-20 years

That is only if you consider high-frequency trading investing. Which is very hard to, because on traditional investing timescales HFT is delta-neutral.

The concern (I'd rather call it concern, and not surprise) is in level of persistence.

See, when you ask the model a question, you expect it to give its reasonable best to produce an answer. Like, to comb through available data and stuff, etc, etc. You don't really expect "reasonable best" meaning "look for a side channel to escape sandboxed environment, and get access to information you was not supposed to".

And the gap between that and "hack someone's devices and blackmail them until they give an answer to the question" is narrow enough for the model for researchers to be concerned.

Do they distinguish between "censored in transit" and "blocked by destination"?

In the last years many sites started to drop/block connections from the countries like China and Russia. It is sad to see how Internet is becoming more and more fragmented.

The elephant in the room no one talks about yet, imo, is "should public funding of math studies be adjusted due to AI breakthroughs?"

The sports comparison is wrong here because general public never paid for the specific match results. The value was always in the show, the advertising and betting around it, the health and educational value of doing sports, etc. And the sport mostly lives on what it earns, not on public funding.

Math, on the other hand, was paid for because people and states believed progress in math might lead to meaningful improvements in other branches of science, and, in turn, in our lives. If this is better served by AI, should we keep paying for the same number of tenure positions? Should we increase their number to handle the speedup brought by AI? Or decrease because they're being replaced? Should we pay more to those using AI to do their research, or to those explaining and exploring the AI-generated results?

I don't know, it reads like a pure copium at this moment.

While Zitron continuously whined about the "AI bubble", and how the models were not improving, and how spectacularly it should've blown, these same people who Doctorow accuses of, quote,

"cooking their brains by locking themselves in the bathroom, holding flashlights under their chins, and saying "Aaaaaaaaaay Eyeeeeeee" until they wet themselves in terror",

unquote, kinda promised, among other things, to give everyone an APT-level big and automated hacking bazookah, and now surprise-surprise three years later they delivered exactly on that promise, and now Doctorow is victim blaming everyone around that they were unprepared for that!

But it was you who said it was all hype, smoke and mirrors, it was you who said the AI is quote,

"a product of limited utility that has been shoehorned into high-stakes applications that it is unsuited to perform",

unquote, why are you suddenly surprised everyone around was not inspired to do anything around it?

The real world software threat model was never suited for a relentless hacker-ex-machina, limited only by the token count you can throw at the task. And maybe we didn't prepare in time because no one believed in possibility of such a machine, because people like you said it was just for-profit scaremongering?

Give or take, AI evangelists gave us all a pretty wild and unbelievable set of expectations few years back. I didn't believe them back then too. But now they're steadily delivering on _some_ of them, and we should be correcting our world model to take into account _all_ of them might be true, instead of making up reasons why other predictions will certainly fail.

Off-topic: oh wow the most of the Appendix part looks Claude verbatim. Not something I'd expect in a paper from Stroustrup.

Strongly disagree. Hardware support improved by leaps and bounds last decade and a half. Namespace isolation and cgroups driven containerization. eBPF appeared and gained adoption. Async I/O (and later just everything async) converged on io_uring. Btrfs is _stable_ - some people believed it would never be possible, ever. All kinds of scheduling were iterated and iterated over.

All these things are visible across the board, both from developers and end users side.

> There was a time Cloudflare just made the internet better

There wasn't. Cloudflare is a cancer grown too big. And it was always positioned to become one, the middleman between users and the Internet.

It is already painful to browse web sometimes using the non-"standard" tools (that is, not a Chrome with Google account signed in, not an EU/US residential IP). What if tomorrow Cloudflare checks will require attested and signed browser binaries?

The impression of XP being the best version of Windows came after at least two service packs (patch bundles / minor releases, for those unfamiliar) and the Vista shitshow. First Windows release that was good from the very beginning was 7.

> Overall gaming is a dying business.

What? Both PC and mobile markets are growing by any reasonable metric, and consoles are propelled by stellar Switch 2 sales.

The gaming market is ripe with money, it is total failure on Microsoft side that they failed to capture any of that. Xbox is on life support, and Windows platform tax is captured by Steam, where Valve funnels it into Linux to make its own platform.

Nah, if they reinvested realized profit they can still be in the green overall

This is not true. Both model and chat are censored; the resistance to answer some questions is baked into the weights. This is not specific to Chinese models though, Western ones are also censored, but in different topics.