From my experience, kinda the opposite? It's like Chinese software is... Harder to weaponize or hurt yourself on. Deepseek is definitely censored, but I've never caught it being dishonest in a sneaky way.
Palantir also deliberately choose a name with sinister overtones, they're just short of calling themselves "torment Nexus builders Inc" or something. I used to think their logic was that someone would build it so it might as well be people who saw the moral hazard, but now I think they're just going all in on the evil overlord brand. Summer kind of pied piper thing maybe.
Weird that you're being downvoted for sharing anecdata on actual use cases. It's as if there's a desire to downplay the positive aspects of this technology in the HN community.
I have no counterargument to your first point, but to your second, an ad for product A is "good" only for the person selling A, it's bad for the person buying (assuming a and b are in the same product category). Since the person buying a or b presumably has an ongoing relationship with the content creator being paid to show the ad, showing a "bad" ad is also bad for the host because it reduces the odds the customer will follow another ad on their network n the future. The catch is that the person selling A can outspend the person selling B, but there's an obvious solution: don't auction ad spaces. If vendor A and B are paying the same fixed amount per impression, B's superior offer is going to take over the market pretty quickly, and the content creator hosting ads will be naturally incentivised to show B's ads.
To your third point, I don't think all tracking is created equal - if it were, there'd be no instinct to post on social media at all, but in fact privacy and publicity are complex things with overlapping sets of advantages and disadvantages. Tracking probably feels purely disadvantageous because the people doing the tracking are in thrall to "A vendors", but if the tracker is incentivised to work with "B vendors" instead it becomes a much more nuanced issue.
I'm pretty sure abnormally low levels of neuroticism is a symptom of Downs syndrome. Not a doctor but I've interacted with several. The only neurotypical people who are that happy are Buddhist monks.
I've been told by someone who'd been in jail a lot, that attorney-client privilege is a huge loophole in the prison smuggling economy and someone in prison asking if you know "a good lawyer" is asking for a lawyer who would be willing to smuggle in contraband during privileged meetings.
I agree. Thing is, Google and meta could do that today, if after getting a sense of what people need they actually showed them ads that helped with whatever that is. Instead they show whatever ad will make the most money immediately, which is only very rarely the same ad. The result is an erosion of trust that reduces their long term maximum potential. It's like they're stuck in scarcity mindset even after getting more money than Exxon.
That gives me an start of an idea for a feature. It might be useful to have it timing based. The thing I'd disagree with about how you frame it is, if you're searching for e.g. "soccer coaches near me", an ad actually distorts the signal of just searching by price of reviews or what have you. Where an ad can add value is if you're searching for "watch soccer matches online" and it says "you said you want to get in shape, here's a beginner friendly soccer coach in your area".
I agree if you're in production mode, all ads are unwelcome, but most of us spend a lot of time in consumption mode too, and that's where unlooked for opportunities are really welcome. If the system could distinguish between when the user is in production vs consumption mode it would reduce friction even more over the initial vision. Not sure how to distinguish that though, most of us can't even tell it about ourselves, let alone want to tell a browser extension about it. Maybe a 'production time' setting that forces a wait time on social media sites and doesn't show replacement ads at all while on?
Short answer, any ad that leads to a non regretted purchase the viewer wouldn't have otherwise made.
The instantiation I'm working on is to track the viewer's long term goals and the habits they're trying to form, then only show ads relevant to those. Ads today are shitty because people with products that add no value to anyone's life can somewhat overcome that disadvantage by bidding more on ad space, so that's what we see. But there are plenty of products that would actually add net value which it doesn't occur to us to look for, and insofar as ads exist, they should help us find them.
This project (my working title is eudaimonia) aims to let the user essentially aikido the attention economy arms race by saying "here's what I think would add value in my life, you may pitch your product iff it's actually relevant to that".
This touches on something I've been thinking about. I'm making an ad blocker that tries to replace native ads with ads that actually add value to the viewer's life. In the public version, I'd like to offer some of the profits to the web hosts even if they haven't heard of it. Do you have any thoughts on how it would be best to go about that?
I've been saying that about a lot of algorithms for a while now, but I think the issue is more that they're smart algorithms optimized for the wrong thing
The reference to 'literature by the pound ' made me think of an apocryphal story about a pottery teacher who at the end of the year would grade his students on either the quality of a single piece or the weight of all finished pieces. With very few exceptions, the best piece of the year would be one of the ones where a student went for volume.
Which is plausible if you need to touch each piece- more repetitions lead to more improvement if you're already motivated to improve anyway - but if the output is coming from an llm, I'm not sure ..
I think this heuristic used to be more useful before it became widely known. Laziness is a fine quality if diligence is publicly rewarded, but once people game the metrics to look more lazy than they really are, things break
I forget who said it, but I heard the idea floated that if your work can be measured in terms of productivity at all, it can and probably should be done by software. Not sure how that applies here since as you point out, a 10x programmer probably doesn't produce 10x the code.