pc86 · HackerLangs

To most of the people working on these AI systems I'm willing to bet work in 90% of their waking life or more.

Using AI for specific tasks at work is definitionally not "integrating AI into your life."

You might use a badge to open a door at work but that doesn't mean your integrating badge-door access control systems into your daily life. It's a tool that you only use at work.

pc86

anteayerdiscuss

This only makes sense if you have to test each fix in complete isolation which seems silly even for government employees and contractor body shops. You can't batch 80 real bug fixes and 20 "silly bug with no practical impact" fixes together?

pc86

anteayerdiscuss

Any argument that includes "they should just" isn't even worth typing or considering as a real policy. They won't just. Nobody will just.

pc86

hace 5 díasdiscuss

You were using LLMs in 2012?

pc86

hace 5 díasdiscuss

You seem to be arguing that government regulation, on its face, is default-good while the GP seems to be arguing that it is default-bad. I bet if you actually engage with the argument in good faith instead of dismissing your imaginary strawman there could be a good conversation! But no the GP disagrees with you, so is therefore a complete moron, so no discussion will be had I suppose.

> In Comments

> Be kind. Don't be snarky.

> Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.

> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says

> Please don't post shallow dismissals

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

pc86

hace 9 díasdiscuss

Then why does this thread have 1800 comments when most HN threads have a small fraction of that? Half of them are just people virtue signaling that they're no longer paying for this VPN service.

pc86

hace 9 díasdiscuss

It's just an add for the VPN

pc86

hace 9 díasdiscuss

> What makes them far-right?

Europe's Overton window being about a football field away from sanity.

pc86

hace 9 díasdiscuss

Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. Believes that there are, at times, technical solutions to both technical and non-technical problems does not make someone a "technofascist."

pc86

hace 9 díasdiscuss

You do not have to stop for a bus if there is a divided median and you're opposing traffic. For the team example, you don't know if someone from the team is going to cross the street so of course you still stop. "This is taking too long" is not a realistic reason to pass a school bus with a giant flashing stop sign on the side of it.

pc86

hace 11 díasdiscuss

If you've heard the phrase "it doesn't get easier, you just get stronger" in regards to the gym, I think it's similar for shipping products. I don't feel less nervous about shipping now than I did 15 years ago, but 1) I'm at least marginally better at this than I was then, and most importantly 2) I don't take feedback as personally as I did then.

Feedback is either positive or negative, constructive or not. If it's positive, great. Maybe that gives you some insight into how your work is positively affecting people. If it's negative and constructive, great! Someone is taking time out of their day to tell you how to make your product better, for free. Print the feedback out and hang it on the wall. If it's negative and not constructive, who cares?

pc86

hace 11 díasdiscuss

Courts are not solving math equations and despite the popular belief to the contrary, most lawyers and judges are not bumbling fools. But to use math as an example of why you don't need an "impractically high" number of witnesses:

  - Let's assume "reasonable doubt" is 0.1%, so you need to be 99.9% sure someone is guilty before voting them guilty
  - Let's assume a random witness to a random crime has a 5% chance of getting some material fact wrong through no fault of their own
  - Let's assume that if you are on trial, there is a 20% chance you are guilty, based on the assumption if you're guilty and know you're cooked you're more likely to plea out, so the people remaining at trial are the truly innocent, the guilty who think they can beat the case, and the guilty who are just rolling the dice.

You still only need 3 witnesses telling the same story to reach >99.9% assurance of guilt. The odds of an innocent person getting convicted with 3 witnesses under this standard is 1 in 8,000.

In reality, witnesses are probably more than 95% accurate with material facts, especially when these are collected in isolation at different times, probably by different police officers.

And if we're being honest with ourselves, a lot more than 1 out of 5 people on trial are guilty of what they're being charged with. The bar for a DA to bring charges is very high, their entire careers are based on conviction rate.

pc86

hace 11 díasdiscuss

This just means that you can't insist someone is innocent despite overwhelming evidence just because they didn't leave any forensic evidence behind which is completely reasonable.

pc86

hace 11 díasdiscuss

It's commonly forgotten that the bill of rights simply restricts the government. For nearly 100 years it didn't even apply to state governments but just the federal government.

pc86

hace 11 díasdiscuss

Who decides whether or not someone is an immediate threat? Is "immediate threat" even the bar for a police officer to draw their weapon? Police can draw their weapons in situations civilians can't legally so I'm not sure the same standards apply.

I don't think the second amendment is particularly relevant. The point of the second amendment is defense against a tyrannical government so by definition we're in extrajudicial territory and don't care if it's legal or not.

pc86

hace 11 díasdiscuss

Is it legal to shoot a uniformed police officer pulling a gun on someone?

pc86

hace 11 díasdiscuss

Ah yes, that old adage :)

pc86

hace 11 díasdiscuss

> Then you will have a lot of Constitution amendments.

You say that like it's a bad thing?

> The burden of ever-changing law landscape will be carried by ordinary people, not by legislators.

The "burden" would also include, for the most part, being able to look up at any given point in time whether something violated the law without referring to hundreds of thousands of pages of other codes, administrative law, and agency rules.

pc86

hace 11 díasdiscuss

I have long thought that capping the number of representatives in the House is the single worst thing to happen, structurally, to the United States government. Representatives should be as close to the people as possible, and spending millions every two years to represent nearly 3/4 of a million people isn't even close.