OK, so let me get this straight: Microsoft replaces junior SWEs with AI... and this presumably doesn't really let the company execute any faster, because bottlenecks at MSFT are mostly unrelated to kLOC/hour. But okay. And then they establish a parallel program for people who are kept on Microsoft payroll... while coding in an academic setting... so that they can progress through the rungs of the SWE ladder and eventually be the ones supervising the AI.
This is really what we're doing? This makes sense? Am I taking crazy pills?
Because these companies have large legal departments essentially in charge of minimizing regulatory and reputational risk. It's the same reason they've been progressively cracking down on firearm accessories, BB guns, knives, fireworks, laboratory chemicals, erotica, pill presses, and a bunch of other things over the past 20 years. All of that is generally legal in the US but makes lawyers and PR people queasy. It's not just marketplaces, Paypal has asinine rules on what you can and cannot pay for. So does Google Pay, Zelle, Venmo, and so on.
I don't think it's useful to point out inconsistencies; the bottom line is that lasers will be on the chopping block within our lifetime too.
You can't buy firearms parts or tooling on eBay in the UK because quite frankly if you're a gunsmith you're probably not buying stuff on eBay, and it's unlikely that anyone who isn't a qualified gunsmith is buying them for anything legit. Similarly, there are age restrictions on buying bladed items, just as there are on buying bladed items in shops. Turns out that all those 13-year-olds buying 14" butcher knives weren't actually filleting venison with them, who would have thought it?
Yer cheapy Chinese radios though? Baofengs are currently about £19 each on eBay, with a discount for quantity.
The amateur gunsmith scene in the UK is pretty small and if you're buying and selling parts and tools, you probably already know who you're buying from or selling to.
It's easier just to speak to someone, bank transfer some money over, and they'll stick it in the post.
Yeah, but you can't in the UK, because the laws are different.
You can, however, buy cheap Chinese HTs (Baofengs are less than 20 quid these days) which are illegal in the US, test equipment that's illegal in the US, and even Tonka beans which are illegal in the US (although honestly if you're buying a poisonous bean to add flavour to a dish you're better buying it from a reputable supplier - a bit like yer gun parts).
Interesting thing about gun laws in the UK vs the US too - apparently if you buy something like a tank with a really massive gun, in the UK "deactivating" it is really just a case of cutting one part off the mechanism. But if you try to ship that to the UK, you've got to basically gas axe off the entire breech and plate up both ends of the barrel, or fill it with concrete or something similar. A "deactivated" weapon in the UK is nowhere near deactivated enough for the US.
Over here, you can actually have a tank with a fully-functioning gun in private ownership. It's expensive to get the right paperwork for it, but it can be done.
I want to say something mean and sarcastic, but I will tell you that for gunsmithing eBay was (is?) very useful, at least for the gunsmiths I know. It was the best place to find a replacement 92S slide and a lot of second hand Tony Kidd parts before a rimfire carnival, but we live in the land of the free, and I don't need to get on my knees and beg for a loiscene like some people.
If someone wants a 14" blade, one can fetch some steel from a junkyard and apply an angle grinder to it. Best results with leaf springs. Then wrap one end with electrical tape and it'll chop an arm or a head off no problem. A bit more effort with the grinder and you get yourself something like a gladius.
Now, what is the point of those bans? So people feel safer while not being safer?
The specific use of the bans is to provide a law that allows the questioning of people carrying knives and the seizing of those knives from those that appear to have no legitimate reason to be waving them about in public.
Like seatbelts they're not foolproof in making people safer, but they do act as a damper on knife crime.
Eh. I don't like these bans, but I think there are at least two good-faith arguments you can make:
1. People who decide to go on murder sprees are usually not high-functioning individuals, so even modest barriers can improve outcomes.
2. Fewer weapons in homes means fewer heat-of-the-moment acts involving these weapons. For example, there are very few firearm suicides in the EU, compared to the US.
Naturally there are less suicides via firearms when firearms are verboten. Firearms may be more fatal than hanging (the most popular method in the EU), but we’re comparing a death rate of 14/100,000 to 10/100,000 which really isn’t that different (and in fact some EU countries like Hungary and Belgium outpace the US avg dramatically, Idk what is happening in Hungary but it’s comparable to our ‘Suicide Belt’). From what I read, hanging has a 70% mortality rate while firearms have a 90% rate, so when adjusted for failed attempts (since I cannot find the actual numbers of attempted suicides) we get 15.5 in USA vs 14.3 in EU per capita. As for other acts such as domestic disputes, fists are far more prevalent because the intent is rarely to kill, and all households have knives if the intent is to kill, so I’m not sure if firearms are a major factor in the actual rate of disputes.
As such, we see little raw change in human behavior. Firearms do not increase suicidal ideation nor intention, they merely provide a more fatal means to do so (although, given the health complications of a failed hanging I question whether the ethics of this outcome are truly superior). So I really don’t consider the argument that restricting a population from firearms is good just due to that, when the method of suicide is independent of the reasons for suicide.
As for #1, cars are still widely accessible, and those who go on murder sprees would have far worse chances if more people carried weapons for self-defense.
As parent stated, these bans do not meaningfully change human nature, they simply give an air of safety. In fact, I would further say they create bad habits within society that criminals can and do exploit. Do you have a meaningful way to protect yourself if you were attacked? You should, your safety is a God-given right that only you can properly defend in the heat of the moment. Does your place of residence not allow for self-defense? Then that is a flaw in governance that must be addressed.
> but we’re comparing a death rate of 14/100,000 to 10/100,000 which really isn’t that different
Its 40% more.
> As for other acts such as domestic disputes, fists are far more prevalent because the intent is rarely to kill, and all households have knives if the intent is to kill, so I’m not sure if firearms are a major factor in the actual rate of disputes.
It wouldn't be a factor in the rate of disputes, it would be a factor in a dispute that turned into deadly one as opposed to not.
> Firearms do not increase suicidal ideation nor intention, they merely provide a more fatal means to do so
They are also extremely convenient and instant.
> So I really don’t consider the argument that restricting a population from firearms is good just due to that
I don't think people are making that argument.
> As for #1, cars are still widely accessible,
Cars are only practical for killing more than a few people when there are large, condensed crowds with road access into them.
> and those who go on murder sprees would have far worse chances if more people carried weapons for self-defense.
"But armed bystanders shooting attackers was not common in the data — 22 cases out of 433. In 10 of those, the “good guy” was a security guard or an off-duty police officer."
"It was twice as common for bystanders to physically subdue the attackers, often by tackling or striking them."
> Do you have a meaningful way to protect yourself if you were attacked? You should, your safety is a God-given right that only you can properly defend in the heat of the moment.
That is not a strong argument for anyone who doesn't feel that they will be likely in a situation which requires them to kill someone for their own safety.
> If someone wants a 14" blade, one can fetch some steel from a junkyard and apply an angle grinder to it.
I'm sure that's what the average 13-year-old wannabe gangster is absolutely going to do, spend 50 quid on a budget angle grinder and traipse around scrapyards for a lorry spring.
Yeah, that makes total sense.
Is there any *legitimate* reason why a child needs to be able to buy chef's knives?
Maybe wind the misplaced sarcasm down several notches please, it's unseemly particularly as knife making is easily one of the more popular goto shop projects in high school (outside the STEM nerd and theatre kids circle, I know) and that "wannabe gangsters" even in their teens have easy access to stolen goods at a discount or often five finger their own.
UK (and Canadian, Australian, etc) weapon disposal schemes frequently land home made weapons eg: https://kk.org/streetuse/english-ownerbuilt-weapons/ from 2006 is barely a trickle of the flood that gets swept up by amnesty programs.
Why isn't a child allowed to practice cheffing on their own? Say kid in a halfway or foster facility where the place doesn't have the knives and no one will buy them for them.
What are you going to tell them? That they're allowed a boning knife that'll easily cut every artery in a human but not a chopper because ooooh those are super duper scary? That they're not allowed any "chef's knife" but the steak knives for dinner are fine?
You know the average 13-year-old wannabe gangster can shave a shank on the sidewalk just as well, right? That a perfectly-capable-of-murder-and-menace device can be manufactured from just about anything? That a common 2x4 or bat or shoestring will do? And that preventing their committing crime with a larger knife is easier to police than a smaller concealable, right?
> Why isn't a child allowed to practice cheffing on their own?
They are, they're just not allowed to go and buy chef's knives. My son is 6 and is actually pretty good at cooking - he can make pizza from scratch, but does still need his old dad to knead the dough, for now I guess, don't know how long that will last.
Can you think of anything you *wouldn't* want your teenager to just be able to go and buy without your permission? USians are pretty weird about alcohol and pornography but equally weirdly permissive about weapons, and I've never heard of anyone stabbing someone to death with a jazz mag or stabbing them with a double vodka.
> is pretty meaningless because the default install doesn't really do anything
Which is a good thing. An important thing. The reason you're stuck in a perpetual update cycle for most Linux distros and for Windows is that they ship with an insane number of things that most users have no need for. Yeah, every laptop definitely needs NetBIOS and iSCSI and UPnP turned on by default.
It's true that everything you add on top of the OpenBSD baseline increases your attack surface, but it's a saner approach than shipping with a gigantic attack surface and then forcing you to know about and disable the things you don't need.
> Classified workstations in National Security contexts? They run Windows.
Which is almost certainly a combination of the complexities of govt IT procurement, the needs of non-technical users who may only be familiar with Windows & MS Office, and the enterprise management features of Windows that aren't as good in most other OSes.
It's a tricky balance. I certainly don't want my devices to have a ton of cruft installed which I would never need. But I also certainly don't want to have to spend a month after getting a new device just getting it into usable shape so I can use it for whatever I got it for. I used to think the second concern is very small since I do not get new devices that often, but turns out it's not true, it's often enough that I really want the OS to contain a lot of things from the start. OK, maybe not NetBIOS but wide enough device support and other capabilities so it would be useful for me. And if it's not, I - and most other technically competent, but busy people - would move on to something that provides that service. Goes double for people that are not technical, obviously.
Sure, I don't disagree in principle with the idea that a smaller attack surface is better than a larger one, nor with the idea that explicitly enabling things is better than having to locate and disable services you didn't even know were running.
But saying "only two remote holes" gives the impression that all of OpenBSD is secure and that it's the most heavily scrutinized codebase in the world, it's bulletproof, etc.
It's not.
My toaster hasn't had a remote hole in a heck of a long time either, but then again it doesn't do anything other than make toast.
The default install of OpenBSD doesn't do anything, so the fact that it hasn't had a remote hole in forever isn't saying much.
I think one has to keep in mind where that slogan came from. A time where every OS tried to start a million services listening on the network, when OpenBSD ended up minimizing that, because it was aware of attack surface.
Nowadays it does the same with being very defensive of complexity and adding features just for the sake of it. They actively remove features and technically break standards to reduce surface. So while the phrase might be dated the whole idea of doing the minimal thing to provide minimal attack surface is something that some other projects could very much benefit from. Especially in times where people use LLMs that happily write ten classes instead of a simple five line function everyone can easily understand and verify.
Also I think it simply became a bit of a meme and like with the art and music it became a bit of a project culture thing. Don't overanalyze it. It's a joke like "days since last accident" and how Shodan is a video game reference and firewall probably came from some fantasy nerd. Hey, the term sharding came from a video game as well!
> Which is almost certainly a combination of the complexities of govt IT procurement, the needs of non-technical users who may only be familiar with Windows & MS Office, and the enterprise management features of Windows that aren't as good in most other OSes.
... and if I were to guess, there's definitely backroom deals between the US government and Microsoft. There's no way all the phone home stuff is even included in "Windows for SCIF".
if you mean as in Windows phoning home in normal installations, a Windows Enterprise install stripped of most unneeded components with Group policy won't really "phone home"
They clearly have some AI-generated write-ups, which I guess is fine for utilitarian stuff like that, but the post in question appears to be entirely human.
If it is, it's not very good. They provide the source for the exploit, great, but the explanation of the exploit is terrible: just seven pithy bullet points. It's not really clear what's going on without a lot more digging. The discussion of mitigations is better, though.
Context: I teach a college-level security class where undergrads do stack-smashing-like attacks (and every year a handful of talented students manage to pull off things like ROP attacks, analysis of entropy for a layout randomizers, or side-channel attacks). All of their writeups are much better than this one.
We're reaching levels of LLM dependency in the field where people just starting their careers in the last few years, now posting on HN, no longer have enough taste to judge writing or code quality.
If, in this era of constantly dealing with overly verbose verbal diarrhea from LLMs, your complaint is that a human write up is too terse... then may I offer a simple cure: you can ask an LLM to turn it into as many pages of slop as you like.
Well, the key thing is that I don't want slop, period. I think a human should take the time and write it up. Honestly, my impression was the opposite-- it seemed like classic AI overly-jargony bullet point stuff.
I'm glad that people are using whatever tools are effective to find bugs, but if you expect a human audience to read about your findings, then is it not unreasonable to ask a human to write it? Most of the time a bug reveals a flaw in logic, and in operating systems, sometimes those logical flaws are informative, and lead to new and better designs, not just bug fixes. So there are potentially missed opportunities here.
It’s not no-win. It’s not sufficient to be a human! Be a better writer! There are plenty of good writers. The main difference between the bad ones and the good ones is that the good ones TRY to write better.
> He tells spooky stories on the internet to make money.
I mean, yes, but so does the author of this article. It's literally his business. The article is, in part, an advertisement for what he sells.
I disagree with Yudkowsky on almost everything and I think the philosophical movement he co-founded is a pox on the SF Bay Area tech culture, but I don't think we can deny him credibility that's comparable to the credibility of the author of this article (who, as I understand, is a young guy who spent some time at OpenAI). They both know what they're talking about and both are motivated to reach specific conclusions.
Because people want to normalize their own backhanded use of AI-generated content. It gives you an edge over human content creators, simply because you can produce more with less effort, but that edge disappears if the content is shunned.
I see this sentiment a lot more recently and I don't understand it. Why is it "backhanded" if someone uses AI to create something. I don't see the connection with ease of creation either.
Do you consider yourself to be necessary? Like, for mankind? Probably not: you're just one of eight billion nearly-identical people, and if you vanish off the surface of the planet, the economic loss will be basically zero. Heck, if you're of retirement age, you're probably a net burden for the society.
But that doesn't sound like a good argument to ride off into the sunset, right? You probably enjoy living and it does make a difference in the lives of some close friends and relatives?
We don't organize societies around ruthless efficiency optimization, we organize them to be at least somewhat hospitable to humans and human enterprise.
No. There's a problem with fully-AI writing that is independent of quality: you can produce a practically infinite supply of it at nearly zero cost. This means that if we don't push back, it's simply bound to crowd out human expression. You already see this on your social media feed, if you're paying attention.
I see inherent value in hearing from and talking to other humans. There is, unfortunately, a lot of AI content hustlers who want to rob me of this so that they can get more links to their website, more eyeballs on their product, etc.
The answer here isn't to demand that submarine marketers and SEO dudes prompt better so that the text is more pleasant to read. It's to cordon it off wholesale. And yeah, that sucks for some corner cases, but there's nothing else we can really do.
An infinite supply of generative AI is bound to crowd out human expression. And consequently, human communication and culture. This applies to writing, visual arts, mathematics, software.. A horrifying prospect.
How does the crowding out work here? I'm not being pedantic, I'm genuinely curious about the dynamics as you see them.
My experience in the publishing world is that there is already an infinite supply of writing. Lots of things serve as filters, some for better and some for worse, but ultimately the quality of the writing (however we define that) vs. the field is part of that filter. There is a competition for our limited little attention spans and finite waking hours, and writing better suited to our tastes tends to win out.
I don't see how that dynamic changes with AI. If all writers have more or less equal access to AI, some writers will use it in ways that result in writing I enjoy more than others. Some won't use it at all and still write work I really like. The majority of people writing with or without AI, just as today, won't write stuff I really want to read.
I don't know if I've ever read a piece of SEO-driven content marketing and thought it was particularly profound or that it made an impact on me. Or that I really had an inherently meaningful connection to the author. I sort of don't care if people generate 100x more of that sort of thing. It makes Google searches less effective, I guess? Or it may make my For You Page on Instagram less human-rich?
I've read some nice poetry though. I usually go looking for it. There are a handful of authors I tend to like consistently. The overall volume of poetry published (it's quite a lot!) doesn't really have an effect on my preference for their work. If there was 1,000,000 times more poetry published because of AI, I don't think it would prevent me from seeking out new poems from writers/publishers/curators I like, nor would I probably really notice.
I agree, with respect to the status quo where AI writing is associated with lower quality.
In the long term, AI writing - mostly done solo, not directed by humans - will likely have higher quality than human writing, while being better suited to people's tastes since it can be personalized for every reader. If so, it's not hard to imagine it crowding out human writing.
You might ask, though, is that a bad thing? If it's legitimately higher quality, then what's wrong with consuming it? Well, I don't know. It certainly seems dangerous for everyone to be in their own little bubble of content. Social media of course tries to do that today, but there are limits. You can't pick any topic, any set of attitudes you want and get an infinite supply of content tailored exactly for you. Even if you find some super niche community to set up shop in, it's still a community; you're still exposed to the outside world at least a little. What happens when that changes?
Human nature is to adapt and extend, sometimes extinguish. If there is an infinite supply of AI slop, we will stop seeing AI slop.
On your next highway trip, keep track of how many lawyer ads you really "see". My bet is that you see a whole lot of them but ultimately, only a handful of them stick because they are funny/clever/interesting in some way.
If "attention is all you need", then the lack of attention on AI slop will kill it far more efficiently than any amount of handwringing.
> You already see this on your social media feed, if you're paying attention.
Regardless of the original provenance of the content on my feed, its presence on my feed has long been a result of ML algorithms designed to optimize engagement/outrage. For me, LLM content gave me the nudge I needed to finally quit the apps.
That isn't a problem with AI writing per se, at least not in the sense that it's a problem in a particular instance of a person encountering the writing. It's a problem with the existence and availability of the tools. I agree it is a problem, though, and it should be addressed by drastically curtailing the development and availability of the tools.
A little bit of subterfuge isn't bad here. Say you've just read about another goddamn "quietly" justified pushback, with enough other evidence that it's pretty clearly AI. What are your options?
Push back against the AI: IME, you get a lot of backpedaling, denials, unproductive arguments with people arguing that their slop is actually for your benefit, etc. They continue misbehaving.
Argue that the writing is objectively bad: You're still negatively critiquing somebody, so this has opposition from time to time, but people aren't emboldened by their use of AI, so they tend to respond much better and actually change a bit -- at a minimum, reflect on why they're being critiqued and try some better prompts, usually even better outcomes.
The "subterfuge" is just applying that latter strategy to all AI output. Whatever you're using to determine it's AI, recast that as an inherently negative property of the writing.
it's the same thing with rsearch papers right now as well. it seems to be the first time in history where one can produce "intellectual" content at a rate exponentially faster than one can read it or process it.
Your last sentence reminded me of a quote by Alfred North Whitehead which I read many years ago in one of my CS textbooks: “Civilization advances by extending the number of important operations which we can perform without thinking about them.” I think about the essential idea of this statement quite often but didn’t remember the exact phrasing. As I went to look that up, I was thinking to myself something like “bet he would’ve changed his mind if he knew about LLMs!” but in finding the quote with its wider context, it appears he would’ve been thrilled:
“It is a profoundly erroneous truism, repeated by all copy-books and by eminent people when they are making speeches, that we should cultivate the habit of thinking of what we are doing. The precise opposite is the case. Civilization advances by extending the number of important operations which we can perform without thinking about them. Operations of thought are like cavalry charges in a battle — they are strictly limited in number, they require fresh horses, and must only be made at decisive moments.”
Apparently, part of his philosophical thought was that the ultimate goal of mathematics is to reduce (maybe even eliminate) how much thinking we do. Not exactly what I thought he was going for all these years lol. I wouldn’t read much more into it but it’s not hard to see how the statement could be perceived as this renowned early 20th century mathematician, logician and philosopher implying that he would’ve have loved the idea of machines reducing the need for research and development in engineering and mathematics (even if only to allow researchers time to focus on more important things).
Edit: As I’m not familiar with the breadth of his works and know of them primarily through secondary sources, I can also see how what he said meaning that the purpose of mathematics is automation in a very general sense, so that humans can reduce the need to think about things other than survival and comfort, and being a mathematician, he likely saw mathematics, philosophy and knowledge in general as one of those “leisure” activities we should be thinking about instead.
> Apparently, part of his philosophical thought was that the ultimate goal of mathematics is to reduce (maybe even eliminate) how much thinking we do.
And it has done so. Imagine how much resources we would be spending on trials for any new object if not for the mathematical models of various systems and events that let us simulate timeline with pure logic. And with the invention of the computer, we’ve ridden ourselves of the human effort of manually computing them.
Pure maths and other theoretical sciences are useful because they brought us tools. Like discovering striking two rocks can produce a spark and thus allowing us to control fire. AI discoveries are more like seeing random thunder strikes and hoping some dry tree is now burning somewhere.
I think abstraction/generalization is definitely a hallmark of the human mind and it's what allowed humans to progress so quickly. It's basically a form of data compression. I think mathematics is one of the most direct examples of it.
Replying to correct my phrasing in the edit, meant to say “so that humans can reduce the need to think about things _like_ survival and comfort,” but ended up saying the exact opposite. The end kind of suggests the earlier part was a mistake though so hopefully it wasn’t misunderstood.
(I change my phrasing multiple times as I’m writing and sometimes leave earlier changes in without realizing and mistakes like these happen, quite a lot in fact. I blame it on ADHD and anxiety, both of which I was professionally diagnosed with at the age of 33.)
No, I'm saying that _caring_ about whether a message is AI or not is going to degrade your health.
The same way children on facebook were bullied in their DMs, etc, was bad for their health.
Its fine people dont want a computer to generate messages, but AI isn't going to continue to generate obviously detectable messages forever. So if you say today "I'm going to avoid AI", you're either going to develop a fixed personality defect or delude yourself into accepting whatever.
Regardless of the case, if you're a disinterested intellectual, what matters more is if the content has any sort of validity. Not whether a computer was used somewhere in the process of generating the validity.
You see how keying in on "this is AI" vs "this is slop" is a fundamental difference in how someone will be emotionally involved in content, _on the internet_, the same way the rise of trolling sunk entire segments of the population into entering far right nationalism?
Anyway, in a couple of years, you'll either be a paranoid internet inhabitant or you will engage with ideas on their basis and only when the idea is backed by the worst people imaginable, is it going to be ok to say "you know what, broken clock here makes a good point, but he's still a stain on existence."
So you're worried that if they keep up the pushback in the exact same way forever it will eventually cause a problem? That's not a terrible point but it's a pretty minor one and depends on reading their post in a pretty specific way.
And even then, "not real" is completely wrong. Even if you can't detect the AI posts (in a hypothetical future!), they still exist.
No, I'm saying there won't be any tells to "push" against, driving them insane.
Go look up "gang stalking" and other paranoid delusions. AI fingerprints are going to disappear, but your adamant vehemence that it's detestable _because of it's existence_ will stay.
So that only leaves an increasing space of growing paranoia that uncritically lashes out at everything. Psychology is what will turn a healthy distrust of bullshit to a full on delusion about the things you view on the internet.
Your comparisons get increasingly insulting. Even if there are no signs, the AI use is still real. That's not at all comparable to gangstalking delusions.
And I don't know where you got the idea they they will continue to push against tells in particular after there are no tells. That's three big assumptions and if any one goes away your argument falls apart. If they eventually give up when the situation changes, there's no problem. If they fight with methods other than tells, there's no problem. If tells don't in fact disappear, there's no problem. You're interpreting their post in the most negative way possible when you make this argument.
Seriously, go back and read the original comment you reacted to. That comment didn't even mention tells. They just said they want to "push back" against "fully-AI writing".
This is a lot of (LLM-generated) text, but there's a much simpler demo you can do for yourself: ask someone to type a "random" sequence of zeroes and ones, and then compare it to the output from /dev/urandom.
One immediately obvious pattern you'll see is that humans not familiar with this test will have a strong aversion to generating runs of zeroes and ones. For example, you probably won't see 0-0-0-0 or 1-1-1-1 in the human-generated sample, even though it has a pretty high chance of appearing in truly random data. It just doesn't "feel" random, right?
This has a practical application: if you're building a game with a component of randomness, people will often feel that the game is unfair or biased if they lose a number of times in a row. Tetris, famously, works around this by repeatedly taking a "bag" of seven possible tiles and shuffling it, rather than picking the next tile based on a dice roll. This way, the distribution over time is still random, but you never get more than two identical tetrominoes in a row.
This is really what we're doing? This makes sense? Am I taking crazy pills?
reply