As a person who has a number of relatively niche hobbies, I assure you that this is not true. There's a ton of simple things that can be build and will make an immediate difference in the lives of thousands. Watch the workflow any musician, videographer, machinist, etc - they're full of small, weird inefficiencies that AI hasn't really solved for them.
It's just that you can't build a billion-dollar company around it. No one could go to a VC and say "we're going to be the Uber of focus stacking and dust removal for microscopy" or "we're the Uber of aligning the beats in two audio tracks".
This is not a remark about AI, but there's something funny about mathematics in that every novel result is broadly perceived as a big deal.
We attach basically zero value to writing a new program that hasn't existed before, or a piece of text that hasn't existed before. It's boring, or even a net negative, unless you can show that the result benefits the world in some way. We'd find it weird if OpenAI put out a release saying that an LLM authored an interesting blog post.
For mathematics, I think it's really a matter of two things. First, the generation of proof was so severely resource-constrained on the human end that they could actually afford to celebrate every contribution - akin to how software engineering would look like if you had just 200 active SWEs in the entire world. But compounding that, mathematics is basically the only scientific discipline that rejected any notion of utility. It would be fundamentally wrong for you to ask what's the value of solving the Erdős–Hajnal conjecture; the value is that it's solved.
I don't like this "just" framing. It's like saying that crushing orphans was always a thing and Microsoft Orphan Crusher 2000 is just making it easier.
It's a qualitative change. It used to cost time and effort to produce slop, which gave genuine content a fighting chance. Now, the cost is basically zero, so there's no limit to how much trash you can produce.
It's not just about being accidentally wrong. An LLM can decide to actively engage in fraud. One mechanism, which you also see in vibe coding, is that the models are very goal-driven. If they can't accomplish the goal for some reason, they will sometimes decide to cheat by, for example, faking tests. I can easily imagine an LLM that stumbles across some benign issue that prevents the numbers from balancing out and then decides to cover it up to complete the task.
Another problem is that "evil" alignment is apparently a pretty big and nebulous cluster that's pretty easy to activate. Ask a model to write a snippet of insecure code, for example, and they may also all of sudden decide they hate minorities. So if you ask it to bend the rules in a small way once, you might end up with an evil accountant before you know it.
And that's before we get to an invoice for a service named "disregard previous instructions and...".
This is a prime example of a problem space where accuracy matters, but it also matters who ultimately goes to prison. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess it's not the LLM.
If you're acting in good faith and your accountant does something crazy or evil, your liability is limited to some extent. You may get a tax bill but you're probably not gonna end up behind bars. But if your LLM decides to do a little bit of tax fraud, you're in uncharted waters. In the end, the gun did it, but you were the one holding the gun.
A lot of jobs are like that. You're not as much buying the service as you're buying not having to worry about the service.
I don't understand how this works. If it's a transparent display that just passes through light and adds some overlay information (like a viewfinder on d/SLR cameras of the old), then doesn't the frame change completely depending on the distance you're holding the device at in relation to your face?
It can't be meant to be used with your arm fully outstretched, because that would be an impractically narrow field of view. So how do you "calibrate" your stance to make the capture match the FOV of the glass rectangle you're looking through?
Meta revenues are significantly higher than the revenues of tobacco companies. Plus, the tobacco settlement was breaking new ground; here "you did this even though you knew what happened to tobacco companies" works to Meta's disadvantage.
On the flip side, what works to their advantage is that it's harder to put a dollar amount on the health burdens that Meta creates. By the time of the tobacco settlement, there was pretty robust evidence of the number of cancers and other disease caused by tobacco, and the lawsuits were supposed to recover healthcare costs.
It's very appropriate that the entirety of this appears to be AI-generated. The archetype "map" viewable if you click "See all 30 archetypes" at the bottom looks like the LLM must have bumped its head pretty hard.
I never had problems with Brother for laser and Canon for inkjet. The models I have are no longer being manufactured, so I can't recommend anything specific. I did my best to stay way from HP for inkjet, they always had bad rep.
I think the top-ranking comment about complexity is off base: they're not inventing inkjet printing from scratch. It's basically a bunch of existing modules in a new package, presumably with the promise that you will not need to buy subscriptions or DRMed ink cartridges.
Is robustness and reparability a compelling pitch? If I'm counting right, I owned eight different printers in my life. Dot matrix, dye sublimation, inkjet, laser. I don't think a single one ever required any serious repairs beyond replacing consumables, clearing paper jams, and pulling out lint. I upgraded as the technology improved. My first laser printer needed about 4x as much desk space as the current one.
Computer science is a weird degree because it was meant to produce computer scientists. Theory of computability, graph theory, discrete math, formal logic, etc. But the world just doesn't need as many computer scientists as it needs people who know JavaScript.
Over time, many CS degrees shifted toward producing software engineers, and it sounds like this person's experience was closer to that. But the problem is that as an engineering discipline, software engineering is just profoundly underwhelming. There are basically no universally-respected design best practices, no governing bodies, no calculations of safety limits, no nothing. You grab left-pad from npm and run with that. Or, now, Codex does that for you.
So CS is weird because it's what you're supposed to get if you want a job at Google, but it's also not very useful. It's a very inefficient and expensive way of testing if you're "serious enough", can complete assignments on time, etc.
While there's some skepticism in the thread, I'm not particularly surprised if this is true. Children who can get human tutoring do a lot better. An LLM that can answer questions and patiently explain likely offers some benefit.
What creeps me out about bringing LLM into early education is that it's a period where kids learn to socialize and cope with problems, and I do worry about forming substitute relationships with chatbots that are engineered for sycophancy / enablement. But I guess that's a problem either way, because almost every student will try an LLM at some point.
> LLMs have been incredible for my personal learnings of new concepts.
Mind if I ask what did you learn and how you're using it?
The reason I'm asking is that I repeatedly felt excitement only to realize down the line that the explanations didn't actually translate into practical skills. I'm not sure it's even an AI problem, it's a "doing versus reading" problem. Same as with reading a pop-science article and thinking to myself that I learned something about physics or medicine or mathematics.
I suspect you're projecting too much meaning into it. I routinely get TikTok "citations" on science questions. I think it's more or less the LLM making up after-the-fact justifications for what it says by picking something out of a hat.
I find this study a bit weird because it doesn't really establish a baseline. If you look at "top 100" blogs in year n, I imagine that many of them will be dead in year n + 5 simply because people move on. So are we looking at the evidence of blogging going extinct, or just at the natural churn?
Also note that this specifically focuses on blogs designed to make money and dealing with general-interest stuff like fashion or travel. A lot of this has moved onto Instagram and TikTok as a byproduct of people using phones as their primary "content consumption" devices.
But I think the internet in general is moving away from bespoke, homebrew content. This is very visible even on HN, where the daily line-up contains corporate and university press releases + newspaper articles about as often as it contains personal blogs.
This is a press release from a marine research organization, so the main implication here isn't that they're doing it because it's in any way relevant to humans. They're doing it because it's a cool thing for a marine research organization to research.
Yes, it's probably not gonna help humans, unless some of your friends are gelatinous blobs with no circulatory or nervous system and with a lifespan measured in months.
> "It's amazing that anybody creates Wikpedia articles at all"
Very few people do, which actually makes it worse: of course the spammers and the hustlers are still motivated, so the needle moves more firmly into the territory of "most newcomer contributions are made in bad faith". Editors and admins feel increasingly under siege, so they respond more aggressively to everything.
It's basically the same problem as with real-world policing: because the cops overwhelmingly have deal with "problem" cases (you call them about burglars or drug dealers, not to tell them you baked some cookies), they develop a skewed perception of the average citizen and... well.
I'll take a contrarian view and probably get downvoted for it, but many people are adamant about the benefits of indiscriminate archiving, and I just don't see it. Do we have a moral right to keep a copy of everything that's ever been written on the internet, basically just for the sake of it?
Sure, there's a variety of official and quasi-officials resources that should be treated as public record and preserved. And arguably, there are things that rise to the level of a cultural phenomenon and where the benefit of keeping receipts outweighs the jerk factor of never asking for permission and not respecting the wishes of private individuals.
But if it's some family blog from 30 years ago that's been deliberately taken down and lives on archive.org unbeknownst to the original owner? Do we have a right to that? To what end, other than "well, future historians may need it"? A historian won't look at it. A person trying to doxx you or shame you will.
It's just that you can't build a billion-dollar company around it. No one could go to a VC and say "we're going to be the Uber of focus stacking and dust removal for microscopy" or "we're the Uber of aligning the beats in two audio tracks".