I'll grant that it's complicated, as the comments on this post have demonstrated.
But half the exposure isn't quite equivalent to twice the protection.
All my life I just thought they were somewhat arbitrary numbers, I didn't correlate them to any actual measurable quantity, and I would assume it's the same for most people. So while I would agree that that representation "gets the job done," I don't think it contributes to a deeper understanding.
I do feel like if you saw "90%, 95%, 97%, and 98%" on the shelf it would start to make some kind of sense, and then when people talk about it ("what's the difference between 97 and 98?") the underlying concept would become more apparent. Using a kind of converted magic number scale that doesn't work like other things seems unhelpful, but I'm certainly not an expert nor the intended audience.
It's not really just framing though, it was reality. An election is a popularity contest, not a morality detector. Everybody knew Biden was (by then) a wet noodle that could not hold his own against Trump.
After reading some of that article and the one from Current Affairs in the other comment, I decided I don't have much of a taste for that genre. They may have some decent points, but it's such toxic bickering.
On the other hand, it's completely unintuitive that "Sun Protection Factor 30 = 1/30th of UV light passes through it", and I had no idea there was any correlation before this comment.
The only intuitive bit about that system is "bigger number does more." I feel like I would have more readily understood it if it just said "blocks 97% (or 98%) of UV light" instead of numbers I assumed were somewhat arbitrary.
Comparison is the thief of joy. I know plenty of people who live in SF on much lower salaries. Acting like you need AI bucks to survive is out of touch with the reality of the common man.
A household that earns nearly 400k talking about "I'm not completely hopeless" is shameful. Take some lessons from people who earn a lot less and are more happy.
This is such an interesting subtext. I think the original comment was a bit unfair to call it "just pollarding," at the least it's a very specific subtype that has its own culture and clear uniqueness.
Your comment feels somewhat reductive as well, you could basically replace "Japan" with a lot of things that are appreciated by some sizable subset of HN readers.
But, for some reason Japan does seem to inspire a certain fervor in both the otakus and weeaboos and their inverses. I think it's because it's the closest thing to an alien civilization for Westerners.
I mean, that's a tale as old as time. That's humans, not AI.
Has the internet enabled more people to be more educated and informed, or has it enabled echo chambers of misinformation? I don't think it's demonstrable that it's not a wash. Technology is an extension, a mirror...we need to fix ourselves, AI is not the problem.
I feel like it could be a law that there is essentially no way to guarantee that AI is any more or less safe than humans. It kinda seems incompatible with what we understand to be "intelligence" which arguably requires a certain unpredictable freedom...Has a method of "baking in" such safety features even been conceptualized? Or is it just a matter of nurturing/raising/policing them after the fact and hoping for the best like with us?
Kind of taking this a step further, what is the worst thing that an AI run amok could do to existentially threaten the human race? I feel like almost anything could be short-circuited by some form of "pulling the plug" before it got too far. But, hypothetically, if it were possible to launch nukes without human intervention, or with maybe a small amount that could be socially engineered, that seems plausible (or releasing some kind of super-pathogen that is stored in a lab somewhere).
So, what if, along the lines of MAD doctrine and the plot of Battlestar Galactica, the best thing we could do for AI safety is just to engineer our other systems so that a hypothetical superhuman adversary could not use them against us? Which is just making our world safer all around rather than trying to kludge arbitrary limitations into an "intelligent" system.
(This doesn't really solve AI child porn and fake news but those things are mostly just imaginative reflections of the people using them and you can't really fix that any more than you can stop people from doing it themselves)
There's something fitting about the mystical nature of LLMs and scrolling through a bunch of goofy pelicans on bicycles representing report cards for the bleeding edge of technology.
How are these even graded? Qwen3.6-35B-A3B gets high marks for a pelican with a gaping hole in its bill?
edit: Just noticed its feet are disconnected from its legs as well (but right on the pedals!). Pardon my French but that's Chinese af.
People do know on some level though. There was enough willpower to get the cookie bullshit on every website.
I think it's just that it's more of a visceral lizard-brain thing than a logical thing. Like how you can go through life eating meat every day, then someone sits you down and tells you the horrors of that industry and shows you a cow being butchered, and you go oh that's horrible, and then most likely put it out of mind and continue eating meat.
I think there's a very interesting duality forming around privacy. It seems like most people don't really care if they're being filmed, or if their data is being slurped up six ways from Sunday, as long as it's aggregated and going through automated systems. But as soon as it feels like an actual person is looking at individual behavior, it's creepy (which is, of course, always a possibility, but plausible deniability is a powerful thing).
I disagree, I found the story to be the interesting part. It's inspiring to me when people have the moral conviction to put themselves out there in a big way at great risk to their personal lives and mental health. And it was gratifying that he succeeded in swaying someone from the dark to the light.
History is rife with examples of "what's old is new again." Human nature and our psychological and social issues are basically constant throughout history. Good examples like this are always worth noting but, as you note, it's nothing very new, I'm sure one of the Greeks said something similar.
In another comment I recalled reading a paper while implementing Rayleigh and Mie scattering a while back...this was definitely it!
Getting it working was a "holy shit, we can actually model this complex real-world phenomenon pretty well with a few relatively simple calculations" moment. I went from a static blue skybox to a full day-night cycle just like that.
I implemented Rayleigh and Mie scattering for a game engine once (my own, hobbyist thing). It was pretty crazy to see a quite good sunset/sunrise cycle from those alone. IIRC even the sun itself popped out of that somehow.
I was using XNA (Microsoft's C# gamedev platform) and following Riemer's excellent series of tutorials, which have been preserved here[0], but I don't see anything about scattering. I might have gotten that bit from somewhere else. I do recall reading papers with math equations.
[email protected]