Why to multiply instead of going to the same place for knowledge? It is almost like you want to make a different Wikipedia for conservatives and liberals because one cannot tolerate a tone or style of the other. Probably we should dedicate dozens of sites for the same topic depending on the writing styles of the humans too. There are a few out there.
In worst case we might have an 'AI language' (or languages) instead, so the sensitive souls could find a safe heaven from it elsewhere, choosing something else. Perhaps one along the idea of 'simple English', have it 'AI English'. Or something else satisfies those looking for a specific way of delivery they can handle exclusively.
I think knowledge is the important here, not the tone.
The knowledge comes from the humans. AI is used to write it down. I do not think it was said that the knowledge comes from the AI. Just like thoughts are not produced by a typewriter.
So the humans have the knowledge, and the only way that an LLM can possibly reproduce it is by happenstance after you train it on the tokenized representation of the human knowledge, a process in which it is just as likely to make something up. What is the point of the LLM in this elaborate waste of time? What does it add?
A typewriter prints the letters exactly as you press the corresponding keys. It doesn't invent bullshit on its own as you do. I can't take the comparison to a typwriter as a serious, good faith argument. If you have any worthwhile ideas, please bring those up instead of poorly considered variations on the usual "it's just a tool" platitudes. The comparison is invalid. You are thoughtless for bringing it up.
Why force one particular website to act the way you want, instead of just using a different website that already does? I don't go to HN and then complain it doesn't have subreddits.
Honestly Wikipedia is just fine being written by humans. It's not the lack of copy that is holding Wikipedia back.
However,
> Perhaps one along the idea of 'simple English', have it 'AI English'.
That's actually an interesting idea. It could work, but I don't personally think it would be better than the English Wikipedia.
Also, are you expecting that humans would still be on the loop by deciding what gets added to AI English Wikipedia, or you think that LLMs should get to decide that too?
> It is almost like you want to make a different Wikipedia for conservatives and liberals because one cannot tolerate a tone or style of the other.
Many conservative worldview elements such as climate change denialism, creationism or anti LGBT view (e.g. LGBT being "unnatural") are not backed by reality because they run counter to scientifical consensus. And that's before we go into the outlandish bullshit conspiracy crap like "ZOG/zionist occupied government", "flat earth", "9/11 was faked", "the moon landing was faked" and the likes that gains more and more momentum among "conservative" people.
You cannot make a Wikipedia appealing to conservatives.
Being that guy, I say cybersecurity is an oxymoron with the messy and heterogenous implementation of identifying the authorised actor. For example passwords are known like two decades or more being frail and vulnerable, yet that's the backbone of security after all those years? So it had to be patched and scaffolded with various techniques like 2FA and one time codes. Still, different ways in all places, so users resort putting all their eggs in one basket just to be able to get moving, storing secrets and keys in one place, handing over to someone on the internet, while calling it progress and the edge of technology. It feels like for a frustrated user who needs to fight through daily identifications in at least one or two of the dozens of systems (distracting from productive work) that the poor person is forced to use as everything must be put on the net regardless if it is better that way or not, it is modern and good for the developer. All in the name of security, so poor user starts to write things down or put all the eggs in one basket in other ways, aggravating the password situation and exposing/risking his life and livelihood. As we see from the frustrated folks in various threads here on HN too.
I do not thing there is (any) security in cyberspace, and this is exposed big now with the use of AI.
Because you have no choice. Often times you run your backend on someone else's computer (the cloud) and they need the key(s) they need in order to access the other services your application needs to do its job.
I heard providers making private keys expecting it to be private, keeping it secret. But it is not, it is shared in fact. It sounds like violating the intended nature of keys. For convenience. Convenience of yet another service is much less important than security and har to imagine being a 'no choice' matter. It feels like some developers consciously but ignorantly and actively fuck up the product they make, risking their users, along their own convenience.
I'm not sure what you mean. If I have an app that sends emails (Sendgrid), maybe an SMS (Twilio), connects to a database (Planetscale), talks to some AI vendor (OpenAI) in the background and has a Stripe integration, I have no other option than to store the credentials for those services with my app at the cloud hoster of choice.
If there is no choice than exposing private keys that needs to be rotated in case of compromise then perhaps that is an incompetent design choice, isn't it? Co-locating services where available or limit from what location a key is accepted, why that is not an option? I still think that if there is 'no other choice than exposing secrets' then there is some seriously fundamental wrongdoing is involved there and there is no-one else to blame for the lots of fuck ups happening than those forming those services - who else, basically, right? the weather or some imaginary father-figure? - the way they do. Regardless if this is a widespread practice. Many wrong will not make something good. There is always a choice, like not doing what cannot be done right. Right?
We reached a state where whatever is on the web that cannot be trusted. Users worry, privacy and secrets are compromised on a huuuge scale, while the creators who did this way are saying 'this is normal business'. That's not right! Privacy is sacrificed for developer's convenience.
Genuine question: what do you recommend as an alternative?
The only alternative I can think of is "own and operate all of your site's hardware on physical premises to which you have sole access", and even that's not perfect.
Are you arguing against hosting/cloud/datacenter services in general? Or is there a specific technique you would prefer people use to secure their keys in a non-owned environment?
In civ it is part of the game not knowing which part of the big map are you in. If you provide space for the eventual map and it is respected, then you will instantly know which corner of the world is yours. Or, if you pick your start location in your room, some distant leaders may end up in the cupboard or the pavement outside. Panning and zooming the growing map as you advance sounds necessary.
The normal non-vr versions already solve part of this: The overall size of the world is part of the initial game set up but that doesn't really reveal your position until you manage to uncover an edge in the fog of war. So you wouldn't don't need to change the zoom any, just translate the view to keep it centered as the player discovers new tiles until they discover ones on a boundary which anchors it.
Probably no surprise some (Western) European countries allow you going to the GP, telling you are exhausted/burned-out/anxious, whatever fits the extreme fatigue, and you get some time of commonly agreed off, prescribed, paid. Everyone is better off that way (except the manufacturers of stimulants. Coffee excluded here! :-) ). Also, overtime is not a trend. Preserved for exceptional circumstances, for a brief period that an otherwise balanced person can handle. Europe is economically uncompetitive, the rest of the world makes circles around it performance and money-wise, also many abuse the system, still, without people a society is nothing, economy alone is crap if it is not for the people, as much people as possible so the streets are not crawling with too much crazy. We need to have a life first. Most of my European friends would never think of living in the US or Asia prolonged, only for an energetic period to boost some aspects (financial, experience, knowledge), mostly when they are young (but not with children, no!). Those places are not liveable from a European perspective.
> Europe is economically uncompetitive, the rest of the world makes circles around it performance and money-wise, ...
Don't buy the propaganda. You're talking about the second-richest part of Earth, with undeniably the world's highest average quality of life. It's also a big place with massive differences.
You have to understand that when Germans are being dramatic over the economic state of their country, they are describing issues that the vast majority of countries would absolutely love to have. Economic growth of only 0.9% is very bad if you have a lot of catching up to do, but Germany doesn't, so it just amounts to being slightly behind other rich countries.
"Deteriorating Europe" is a Russo-American psyop. Luckily we have better memory - we've heard this song for at least 100 years by now, and yet here we are. That's not to say that there aren't issues, but Europeans are largely unbothered by things like the GDP growth difference between the Eurozone and the US, because it's quite clearly driven by a runaway stock market and unfathomable inequality. You can't eat GDP figures.
Depending on where you work, in Europe it can be just as bad. It doesn't matter whether Europe is economically uncompetitive (is it?), if the people themselves think they have to compete and become deprived of time and energy then they will burn out regardless. I see it happening left and right lately.
The only thing here is that there generally is a fairly robust social net ready to catch you if you do, as you mention. But my honest opinion is that this is not a solution, it's a bandaid for the real problem: why do people feel like they have to work themselves into the ground in order to be able to live?
You are right though, many here including myself cannot imagine living in those circumstances in other continents. I think that is another problem in itself, that people are becoming complacent here due to the low risk. That might even be part of the reason why people are so careless with their work-life balance, because they can't really lose it all like in other places, so maybe people stop paying attention to things that are actually important. Just guessing.
Meh. It's competetive enough. Productivity per hour worked is about the same (sometimes higher) than in US. We just work reasonable hours.
> Those places are not liveable from a European perspective.
If the sacrifices these people make were at least for something that was obviously good - I could maybe understand that. But it's mostly making the world worse (either through financial schemes, addictive social media, marketing, AI, or other pointless bullshit).
Imagine wasting your life slaving away at making better ways to get people addicted to nicotine. That's IT now.
Really? The last time I checked, Germany was sitting well in the middle of Europe
* contrary to many countries it has had export/import surplus since decades. Not a single year with a deficit since 1952. Compare this e.g. with the USA, which had the last surplus in 1975.
* it's tiny, look at it on a globe. And yet it's number 3 worldwide on economic power. Two years surpassed Japan that is larger by size and has double the people
* in June it had the highest exports ever in it's history
And that is just ONE of the European countries. Others, like Switzerland and Netherlands aren't shabby either, especially normalized to inhabitants or country size.
These old people started their career when computer use became a job requirement for any office work. A few years more and homes got saturated as well. A 52 yo was 20 thirty years ago, in 1996. Have you heard about Napster, MS Office, Netscape, Windows 95 / NT, Hotmail, AOL, Messenger, ICQ, Doom, C&C, .... hundreds more. And everything else since. They had to live through those every day, keyboard+screen instead of pen+paper.
...aren't you confusing them with the generation above 80?
50+ year olds seen and used and made more than 30 years worth of constantly evolving technology, their life was saturated with it for 3 decades. Was this what the poster wanted to say perhaps? ; )
In worst case we might have an 'AI language' (or languages) instead, so the sensitive souls could find a safe heaven from it elsewhere, choosing something else. Perhaps one along the idea of 'simple English', have it 'AI English'. Or something else satisfies those looking for a specific way of delivery they can handle exclusively.
I think knowledge is the important here, not the tone.
reply