Generally I've seen no signs that HN is anti-AI. I haven't ran the statistics, but there is as much excitement around AI especially when new opensource models release as there's cautionary tales around it. Even being pro-AI I have to admit that I scream at the black box and throw slurs at it quite often because it's genuinely a fustrating tool to use when it does not understand basic instructions, but also makes you understand that this is not magic.
However, people do need to make peace that AI as a tool is the future of programming at bare minimum and especially at coorperations as it becomes part of performance reviews and you have to compete with AI assited collegues. As I've said before at least for me AI replaced the boring part of writing code, but reignited the joy of designing systems and problem solving.
Compression loss can lead to a decompression of sorts if I had to guess... it is a vaccum out there. The force from a decompression can yield a chain reaction or strongly disrupt the entire station.
This likely varies person by person or the way people adapted AI. For me AI replaced the boring part of writing code, but has not replaced the fun part of thinking about code and problem solving.
All started by openai wafer capacity commitments that aren't being met anymore... The ECC ram systems I've bought are now worth more than the original purchase price of the entire system and I've been debating on just selling them since they're now worth nearly double their value which would outperform any stock trades I've ever made any given year lol.
True, but security breach inside a sandbox/container can cause serious damage too(stealing your code/data/keys, spreading via your code/release etc). And containers aren't for security anyway(e.g. Copy Fail breaching to host https://xint.io/blog/copy-fail-pod-to-host)
It's rare that both of those align and it is very unlikely that both are used at once. Most of the exploits (if not all) just install rce, rat and/or steal env.
Any kind of quantum workload would live in servers since their capabilities will likely never be latency sensitive. I think what is more interesting is finding a way to utilize the fact that quantum information is capable of traveling faster than the speed of light, obviously observation of the data is bound the same limitations as we have today, but we could scale bandwidth by encoding data and "teleporting" it to the destination greatly increasing throughput, you can think of it as infinite compression. Even more interesting would be to genuinely understand why our universe is able to bind particles like that though since right we know it happens and we can observe it, but we don't really know why or even if it travels faster than the speed of light, but rather we are simply surfacing a derandomized value. This is pretty hard to explain, but if we follow the many-worlds theory we're simply observing an artifact that if we observe value B in the future, we are simply from a universe that had the value B to begin with which means the information never needed to travel at light speed, it was always there.
I think we will find quantum going mainstream in places we least expect, mostly based around derandomization and amplification of data throughput rather than any kind of compute.
Wasn't the entire conflict behind entanglement that it appeared to have the capability to violate this princible with the only two explanations being: quantum state travels faster than the speed of light or we're in a many-worlds universe where state propagates backwards which means the information was there from the very beginning?
The key word here is "information". No known quantum effect results in information being transferred faster than the speed of light (which might be more correctly known these days as a the speed limit of information). Entanglement, even at great distance, does not violate this principle as that cannot be effectively used to transfer information.
The historical debate around Bell's Theorem and Einstein's "spooky action" often leads to this exact confusion, but quantum mechanics has an ironclad mathematical guardrail against this: the No-Communication Theorem.
Entanglement cannot be used to transmit messages, amplify bandwidth, or achieve "infinite compression" for a few foundational reasons:
1) The Classical Bottleneck: In quantum teleportation, you aren't actually moving information through space faster than light. To reconstruct the state of a teleported qubit at the destination, the sender must transmit two classical bits of data over a standard, traditional channel (limited by the speed of light, c).
2) The Randomness Vector: Without those two classical bits, the receiver's particle looks like completely randomized entropy (a maximally mixed state). You could spin your entangled particle right now, and the person on Mars would see their particle change state instantly—but to them, it just looks like a random coin toss. They cannot know what you chose to measure or what your result was until your classical radio signal arrives to break the encryption.
3) Holevo's Bound: From an information theory perspective, Holevo's theorem proves you cannot extract more than one bit of classical information from a single qubit. While superdense coding lets you pre-share entanglement to send two classical bits using one physical qubit, it still requires physically moving that qubit through space at or below the speed of light.
Whether you favor Copenhagen, Many-Worlds, or Pilot Wave theory, the physical reality across all interpretations remains identical: local causality is never violated. Entanglement shows us that nature is non-local, but it completely forbids us from weaponizing that non-locality to send a signal faster than c.
That's the bit I was thinking about the most: "pre-share entanglement to send two classical bits using one physical qubit" I did mention that we cannot achieve data transfer faster than the speed of light, but with the use of "teleportation" we can increase bandwidth that still holds true doesn't it?
There is quite a simple solution for many of the problems described in the comments: Make drafting legal papers a defined interface.
If you think about it and extract sematics of any law you get something that looks familiar, sort of like code. Of course there's some complexities where certain phrases can mean different things, but legal papers in a way are written like they're programming languages already especially when it comes to law.
First we would have to define a language that can handle ambigious operations and we alread y have this with programatic proofs where n should land in x. So in the end I'd assume it would look something like this in a two party dispute:
This is very simplified and pseudo like language, writing out a full contract would be as long as a real contract.
DEFINE DEFENDANT "A Corp"
DEFINE PLAINTIFF "B Corp"
DEFINE CONTRACT CONTRACT(PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANT, 3054-41-95)
// attaching extracted requirements, definitions and obligations of contract
FACT PLAINTIFF delivered(goods) ON 7054-34-99
FACT DEFENDANT paid(0) OF CONTRACT.amount
CLAIM breach WHEN obligation(DEFENDANT, "pay") IS NOT satisfied
PROVE breach:
REQUIRE PLAINTIFF performed
REQUIRE DEFENDANT.paid < CONTRACT.amount
ASSERT delay WITHIN reasonable(time)
IF PROVE(breach):
AWARD PLAINTIFF (CONTRACT.amount - DEFENDANT.paid) + interest()
ELSE:
DISMISS
Then you would run a proof based LLM to generate it into target language and since we already had an example of this from one of the AI labs we know it works. Automatic citations and supporting proof would be automatically populated from reviewed legal -> DSL extracted papers as supporting evidence.
I am sure that many AI labs are working on something similar already and we will see something like that in the near future as proof based llms evolve.
The problem with voting is that people are simply not engaged in politics anymore. I have never voted and never will.
To be impactful you have to be a politician and that's a full-time job which lives off donations. We need more politicans, but we don't have a reward structure to support them so we have too few politicians which means the few are funded by powerful people making even fewer make the decisions.
Just to make myself clear, when I say politicians I mean someone who tries to bring politican change, not someone who works in the government making decisions.
Democracy sounds nice, but it assumes people want to participate in it: actively validate facts, find truthful information not just vote whoever promises more of what you like.
Of course on the other hand you have the european federation: they are able to make unpopular choices, but at a steep cost which ends up hurting the member states and making the general population pretty hateful of the european central government.
Governments are too big to change, but what we have doesn't work and we're probably going to be in a world of hurt as the american type democracy(japan, australia, etc) is being manipulated from all sides, federations are uncompetitive and dictatorships becoming the strongest government there is being able to accelerate faster than anyone else and becoming the defacto world power.
Thank you for putting the reason at the top to disregard the rest of your post-hoc justification. Your prescriptions literally don't matter because you will never engage with the political system.
I can influence politics without ever voting myself so this statement is just wrong. In fact, politicians usually don't vote and if they do they make it into a spectacle.
Moreover, it should be acceptable to be fustrated with the political system and bring broader change, something I don't have the energy to do myself since I generally don't believe I'll stay where I am in the forseeable future as I "vote" by simply leaving my country.
Of course when you're talking about superpowers such as United States the story is different as your vote can impact the global state of the world, but that is a whole different conversation and I am luckily not apart of it.
I don't vote because I am uneducated enough in local politics to do so I would only be corrupting the vote and dilluting votes that are that of people who did their research.
This is an opinionated take, but voting just to vote is pointless and does more harm than good. I guess I should have positioned that at the end instead of making that the opening statement.
> I don't vote because I am uneducated enough in local politics to do so I would only be corrupting the vote and dilluting votes that are that of people who did their research.
I'm going to tell you a secret it doesn't tell you on the ballot: You don't have to fill in all the bubbles like you're being graded in middle school. You can chose to only vote for things you are opinionated on.
Just kidding, every ballot already explains this. Next time just admit you're lazy to cast a ballot and lead with that. Its the same outcome, no reason for anyone to read the next 10 paragraphs.
"Democracy sounds nice, but it assumes people want to participate in it: actively validate facts, find truthful information not just vote whoever promises more of what you like."
Have at least some conversations with people you trust, that's the bare minimum.
Saying you're uneducated in local politics is just an excuse you're making to justify your actions.
Local politics isn't filled with much drama, and probably isn't that entertaining, but that exactly the problem with global and national politics - it's all driven by dopamine.
You shouldn't vote just to vote, you should vote to make some sort of change (or not), and it's ok to be wrong in this decision. That's why democracy is great, it renews itself every X years.
This used to also be my stance, but I eventually changed it on the reasoning that the "people who did their research" that I was diluting, did not in fact exist in any meaningful number. If you believe yourself to be a somewhat intelligent person, doing even a small amount of intentional research into what you are voting on puts you way ahead of the average voter on how informed you are.
I think most people just vote for whoever’s mailer they like more. Where I live, the Republican candidate just sends out a mailer with him standing next to a firefighter and a cop and that’s really it. Maybe some garb about reducing crime and taxes at the same time. That’s enough for many (most?) to decide whether that’s the candidate they want to vote for.
I would agree, but no information voters who don't even think about that fact are already a large percentage of voters. Just being able to recognize your own flaws puts you above many others.
> The problem with voting is that people are simply not engaged in politics anymore. I have never voted and never will.
Seems like you identified the problem. I'm definitely the type that thinks there is nothing salvageable from the current U.S. system that was dreamt up by a bunch of racists who thought owning other human beings was acceptable, but I also believe that voting is a form of harm reduction. The people who want to do harm vote, and they do it reliably.
Large chunks of the founders were opposed to slavery. John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, Gouverneur Morris, Sam Adams and more.
That's cool that those people who were supposedly opposed to slavery were fine with creating a brand new nation which had, in its constitution, "You can't ban slavery for a few decades" and "Places with more slaves get more power" as primary concerns.
Completely unrelated of course to the growing popularity of abolitionism in Great Britain which banned the atlantic slave trade in 1807 and formally banned slavery in 1833, long before that brand new country which supposedly had so much influence from "anti slavery" folks eventually found cause to ban slavery decades later, and only made black people equal members of the country over a century later.
It was a compromise... After the war the choices were to unite or be taken back over by Britain. Being taken back over would mean everybody who died and suffered from the war would be in vain and slavery would continue on in the colonies just like before.
People like Morris tried to get rid of the 3/5 compromise and get rid of the protection of slavery. He was one of the most vocal against slavery. He called out the hypocrisy and wanted to slow the import of slaves by taxing the import. He and others like him tried their hardest, but were at least able to set things up to allow the eventual ban.
I don't get people like you who can never see that while things weren't perfect, moving in a better direction is good. You let perfect be the enemy of good.
Everyone pushes voting and sure, you should vote if you're able, but the other half of the puzzle is you need to have good options to vote for.
Politicians are relatively low paid for the expertise we want and so many of the folks running are people looking to supplement their income with influence peddling and grift.
This is why I wrote such a strong statement I don't have anyone to vote for and looking back at the history of my country I had never had a politican I would have wanted to vote for.
No, but previous politicians have always setup future politicians for failure and the current politicians don't want to do anything about it since it would cause them to very likely lose the future elections so instead they choose to kick the can down the road as they say. The politican system is built in a way where there can't be someone I'd be willing to vote for as they would simply lose the election therefore there wouldn't be a politician campainging for something that would gurantee them a loss. And historically is closer to "modern democracy" rather than people from a thousand years ago.
I mean all bot protection is useless at the end of the day, every time I have to bypass it I can do so in roughly 3 to 5 hours both 2 years and and more recently around 1 month ago. 2 years ago it was an absolute joke and only took me 30 minutes.
Well I mean maybe it wasn't useless 2 years ago, but in the age of AI it definitely is.
However, people do need to make peace that AI as a tool is the future of programming at bare minimum and especially at coorperations as it becomes part of performance reviews and you have to compete with AI assited collegues. As I've said before at least for me AI replaced the boring part of writing code, but reignited the joy of designing systems and problem solving.
reply