Top recent comments

This is an example of why I'm a little stumped about why people are excited about Jev-style decision models. For any application at scale it'd be way more accurate to have a dedicated classifier using the right architecture (neural net, bayesian, etc.) LLMs drive the cost of making those models down to near zero. Just use the LLM to make a thing that's actually good at what you need it to do.

Competition drives prices down. We tried Kimi and GLM models after hitting 'cybersecurity' blocks on OpenAI and Anthropic. We found them to be much cheaper to access and helped us complete our work without 'cybersecurity' refusals blocking us.

> Mostly static. The net is quiet until it isn't. > Preformatted is what you can hear: the same shape every time. > hearing it is all anyone outside the force can do. > The day has a shape. I would recommend switching to a newer Claude model.

I liked this article. I appreciate that it didn't try to say it is or isn't AI. To me, the entertainment industry suffers from a lot of the same problems in most other industries that chase "efficiency", in terms of resources used and profit made. Economies and industries and labor are interdependent and more "alive" than balance sheets and bank accounts. For the film industry, when you start moving things away from LA to "save money", it has knock on effects that happen over long periods of time. Multiple Quarterly Earnings Reports long, if you will. Local businesses that depend on the film industry close due to less work, so then there is less expertise available. Less expertise means it can command high prices. Suddenly it's too expensive to film in LA altogether. So the rest of the jobs leave too. This pattern seems super common, not just in the film industry. It is a narrative that interweaves with AI, too. AI is supposedly an efficiency boom. In the macroeconomy, who is the "efficiency" we are chasing for, who benefits? Who is getting the money that was "saved"? Regular people do not have more more money or time. The "efficiency" is for people who are already very rich, to get richer. Is that worth the price we're paying? I know my answer. The article gets close to it by mentioning the consolidation in Hollywood, but I do not see how we fix this without enforcing our antitrust laws. It is embarrassing what we let rich people do in the name of stock price go up.

Well, whoever picked the name HTTP2Shell certainly didn't use any intelligence, artificial or genuine. It's so meaningless, broad and undescriptive of the actual issue. No it probably doesn't affect an HTTP server with nothing else behind it, so why is HTTP being blasted? You might as well call it Exploit Pro Max...

Seems like everyone here has an exploit but they're all busy washing their hair, or thinking of the children, or making huge amounts selling their exploit on the darknet instead. Given there are public patches and explanations of the issue, isn't it a little late to try to keep this under wraps? Over a day or two we'll see whether people have an exploit - if more than a few people do, someone will claim this $1k soon. Out of curiosity, what do you plan to do with your exploit that you're holding back?

As a technical writer, I believe default AI responses are optimized for what people _think_ is good writing rather than what actually is good writing. My guess is years of RLHF optimized for rater's first impressions of how well-written something was. It uses lists! It has headings! It uses fun phrases like 'smoking gun'! It's long and informative! These things are relatively fast and easy to identify and select as a preference. But none of this really covers whether the response is _useful for the audience_. If you're not the audience, it can be hard to tell what is and isn't useful.

There is a lot of cynicism in this thread but the fact this is still open and hour later ends the narrative in my view. There are not "thousands of swarms of agents autonomously compromising every site for its authors" or any the other x / LinkedIn dribble ive been reading. It clearly isnt happening.

The tech sector is the most software-defined and virtual of all sectors, it's natural that they are first to change. Other industries need to make capital investments to adapt to change. You can see a similar history with electrification. A few industries went quickly, but then it took like a decade of little growth before the true benefits showed up. As an example, take a factory that was built around hyrdo-power like a grain mill. You can't just take an electric motor and drop it in in place of the water wheel. It doesn't fit, the wheel is outside, there isn't room between the mill and the wall, etc. Only when you completely rebuild a new mill building designed around the features and limitations of the electric motor do you see the major benefits. Same thing here; it will be new factories and new companies that are designed from the ground up around AI and its benefits and limitations that really move the needle.

> According to the petition, two people asked [Meta AI] to pick a number between 1 and 25. They gave no instructions and made no reference to the election. In one attempt, the AI answered 13. In the other, it answered 22. Those are the party ballot numbers of Lula and Flávio Bolsonaro, respectively. The groups question the coincidence. My confidence in the validity of their claims tanked right about here. I'm all for regulating transparency into social media algorithms. Meta most certainly is compromised by foreign actors. But can we choose less stupid hills to die on than numerology and GIFs? Headline is not remotely supported by the evidence.

Cool analogy, but there's another possibility: software is uniquely suited for being boosted by LLM-based coding agents. That's not to say LLMs are useless in other domains, but they may not yield as much benefit. Software creation tools have been worked on for decades to keep fallible human coders out of trouble as much as possible. Starting with compilers that enforce or at least encourage coding style humans can understand. Compilers embody formal definitions of language syntax. Lint and other static analysis technologies contribute by identifying problematic patterns in code. Leak detectors identify memory management problems. Profilers identify performance problems. Few other endeavors have this much tooling that serendipitously happens to help help LLM-based agents be more useful and less error prone. A lot of discussion around AI is very high-level and abstract. It helps to dig in and identify the characteristics that actually make a domain more or less amenable to being boosted by AI.

It's the same here. AfD content gets pushed on YT. No matter how often I ignore channels. Big tech is so rigged (intensional or not), the question if it is socially net negative has become rhetorical.

I would throw the entire docs out and write it from scratch in your own words. I get that we live in an era where the machine writes most/all of the code, and I can accept that. What I need, to even consider using and extending this project, is some understanding of what part of the design is yours and what part is accident by Claude. I can't get that from reading Claudese.

Btw I made the language, AMA. repo: https://github.com/aardappel/goose

"You can see the computer age everywhere but in the productivity statistics." -- 1987

The example showcased is particularly weak, but the actual scandal with Meta AI is that when they are asked to produce campaign material, they spontaneously produce it with Bolsonaro's number (22), even when not asked. But then they refuse to produce it with other numbers like Lula's 13, saying they can't perform this for a specific candidate. When asked, they admit they were inconsistent in producing Bolsonaro-linked material, but in new chats they reliably continue to do so. See for example what was posted in this thread https://www.reddit.com/r/brasil/comments/1x965on/eu_n%C3%A3o... What would be useful here is leaking the system prompt for the Meta AI inside WhatsApp

It’s mind boggling that in the UK there’s a law that says: > “A plank of wood must not be carried along a pavement. It can only be moved if it is being unloaded from a vehicle or taken into a building.” But big tech cannot be regulated at all. We used to regulate any minor thing that was annoying enough, but a whole industry spying and prying on the whole population is fine.

Agreed. I've been seeing too much "I've been coding for decades and what I've always done has be reduced to telling AI to do it for me." and not nearly enough "I've been coding for decades and recently worked hard for months with AI's help to make something I would have never considered possible before." Much easier to complain that you are bored than to step back up to high-effort with your new fancy tools.

Bahaha someone added to the fund. It’s now $1004

>This is common practice among tenured professors with grant money to spend and graduate students beholden to them (I’m not making a moral statement, just noting this is common practice). No, that's not common at all, nor how the system works. Use of graders/TAs are on an institution basis. "Grant money" has absolutely nothing to do with it. Grant money is earmarked for specific research and cannot be spent for teaching purposes. When grant money is used to hire graduate students, they are research assistants and must work on the research project which the grant money was given for. TAs/graders come from separate tuition budgets. Tuition dollars are much more preferred anyway because they're stable and faculty do not have to work for them, they show up based on enrollment. The fact you have TAs/graders at all is by institution. Large R1 institutions have grad students and undergraduate population to fill these roles. In these institutions, 1 minimally sized undergrad class = at least 1 TA, with additional TAs and graders after some enrollment threshold. Tenure has absolutely nothing to do with it. Adjunct faculty get TAs/graders all the same.

Some agencies have a different tactic: go really slowly. I sent a public records request to my local school district on March 9th 2026. They responded on 19th March 2026 saying they'd respond on in late April. Since then, every month they've sent an email with some small portion of the records, with a PDF letter saying they'll send a follow up a month later. I've received 8 of those responses so far, and there's no indication when, if ever, I will have received all the records responsive to my request.

Because he doesn't need attention

My daughter receives books through this program and I was curious how it was sustained at a $2.5/book wholesale cost. Interestingly, the coordinating body that selects books, facilitates distribution, and negotiates wholesale pricing is the Dolly Parton Imagination Library, but per-book funding is actually entirely through local charities and so on. This means that where charities are unable to act as partners, children will not receive books, but it also means that the program can operate by growing and shrinking as local support (including from state and local government grants) comes online and goes offline while keeping the overhead for local partners low. Dolly Parton came up with the initial local structure for her region in Tennessee and David Dotson of Dollywood scaled the operation using this decentralized model. Very impressive structure that makes this sustainable. Here’s the interview where he talks about it: https://www.endbookdeserts.com/dolly-parton-imagination-libr...

In a normal world, this would be treason by an illegal immigrant to the US. In today's world it's a blip in news. Sad state of affairs :( Europe will absolutely build alternatives. They'll bicker for some time, but in the end, they build. To Americans it looks like they don't but they do. Quality of life, life expectancy, and many factors have outpaced US in the last few years. The tech industry in the US is still important, but the importance will start waning soon.

I haven't spent much time in the video processing/streaming space, but I was delighted to discover OBS Studio this week while putting together what has turned out to be an incredibly cozy little entertainment setup by feeding the two gaming consoles and geriatric gaming desktop I've acquired over the years into an HDMI switcher and USB HDMI capture box that in turn streams the feed into an OBS Studio preview (launched from Steam) running on a dummy display. Launching OBS Studio through Steam lets me stream that preview to my VR headset over a 6GHz WiFi dongle and play games wirelessly in what feels like my own little private theatre. OBS Studio was the puzzle piece I hadn't figured out when the headset showed up last weekend, and I've been really impressed by its performance so far... I think this setup even shaved some latency off when playing online, since consolidating the consoles next to the router let me hardwire them. Many many thanks to the OBS Studio team for making software that's helping me live out a small part of what I remember hoping technology could be like back in the 90s. I am grateful (:

Number of employees isn't a straightforward calculation. - A lot of companies have part time, seasonal and contract workers (e.g. Amazon and Walmart). For some this even makes up the majority of their workforce. - Some companies operate on a franchise model, and corporate employees are very limited. For example the 414K employees listed for Marriott aren't directly employed by them. But then you don't apply the same logic to McDonalds, where you are only counting the corporate employees. - Holding companies (like Berkshire Hathaway) show the full employee count of their portfolio companies even through they may only own a small share. And again the logic isn't consistent because you are only counting 714 employees for Welltower, which is also a holding company. Collecting incomplete or incorrect data and adding a hunded disclaimers at the end of the report is standard LLM behavior. Actually valuable analysis of this sort needs a lot more human effort.

Meanwhile household basics increased faster than wages. In other words people don’t have more money. https://www.unitedforalice.org/essentials-index

> that is very unlikely to ever happen. It's already happening. > They are politically and societally paralyzed from building even basic things like datacenters which are essentially just industrial compute factories and the foundation for anything pertaining to data sovereignty and technology sovereignty. No, they are not entirely blind to the consequences of this buildout and are trying to find a balance between environmental concerns and technological progress. I agree that we should probably do more but to use words like 'societally paralyzed' is rather uninformed about what actual democracies look like. edit: never mind, I just checked your comment history, this seems to be some thing that you are repeating over and over and getting the same kind of answers but you just keep doing it.

Thanks, but no thanks? I use GrapheneOS, but if you as a bank want to gate access to my money via some kind of technology, you better be including it as part of the account. For example, HSBC continues to let me manage my bank account via the web browser, and continues to offer a battery powered hardware token as the means of authentication. I let you hold my money, for whatever reason. Why do you expect me to be your distributed infrastructure provider? I am not going to let you require that I run your proprietary malware in order to access my own money. The idea where you are effectively _expected_ to constantly provide free compute for companies to run their complete garbage on hardware _you own_ just for the privilege of giving them money is one of the most absurd trend in recent times. I'd say that JS webapps are the same but at least there you run things on your terms in a sandbox that you can inspect and look at the requests, and there's no effective enclave carved out of your hardware (except for EME but that's another topic for another day and I'd be complaining if banks started to use it too).

You might be overthinking it. Most people want to use their phone for convenience, and if an app allows them to remove just one step in their banking activities, they'll probably do that. As for the second part (separate authentication methods), sure, would be rather problematic if they require you to have a phone, but that's a completely separate and different issue.