Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | maweaver's commentslogin

Yes but generally one cannot walk into a store and buy a fake id, then turn around and hand it to another cashier in the same store for a restricted purchase. Which I think would be the closer metaphor.


>turn around and

Except that each of the parent's chat windows has zero context that the other window's request even exists, so from each window's point of view it's as if one person walks in to a store to buy a fake ID, and then somewhere else in a different universe on a different timeline a different person walks into a different store to hand that same fake ID over to a different cashier for the restricted purchase.

The LLMs are doing the best they can with absolutely zero context. Which has got to be a hard problem, IMO.


Except that's the point. It is the same store. It is two different cashiers. The second one doesn't know you got the ID from the first one, that's why it works. The point is that if a store like that existed, it would be stupid as fuck.

Also, at least in ChatGPT, it has access to every other session, so you're never working with zero context unless you create a new account (and even then they could have other fingerprinting, I just haven't tested it).


Or if you disable the context-sharing feature, of course.


I haven't trusted that disable switch for a while now... I'd always had it disabled, but there was one conversation in particular where it referenced a past conversation - despite memory being disabled - and when I asked it why it responded the way it did, it pretended I was mistaken and told me it has no memory of past conversations, even though I could scroll up and see it in the response.

Just because you flip a switch doesn't mean the switch is _actually_ flipped. Same thing goes for turning off wifi/Bluetooth on iOS.

If it's a software switch, it's closer to a promise than a guarantee.


180, not 360


My favourite example of bureaucracy that I've ever personally experienced and that I consider to be a hole in one is when I had to show my ID to pick up my passport from the office. I paused for a second and asked the lady what was up with that and if I can now use my passport if I got back in the line for something else without using my ID and she said yes.


Why is this weird? You have to show ID that matches the passport and then in the future you can use a passport as your ID, makes sense.


He bought his way into politics, came in with a chainsaw (almost literally), realized he didn't want to be in politics after all and rage quit. It may not make him a dumbass, but it certainly makes him some sort of ass.


As someone else mentioned above, with jam bands each performance is unique, and people definitely value getting access to every show. For bands repeating the same set as identically as possible on a tour, not sure how much it matters which performance you listen to. Although some people might be into it, for the "I was there" novelty factor.


Using what mechanism? Most Linux updates are not pushed but rather pulled at the user request. You can use Linux totally offline. This is fundamentally different than a webapp, where code is sent with every visit


The automatic updates most distros have enabled by default. Signal desktop outright stops working if you don't constantly pull updates from them.


Debian requires unattended-upgrades to be installed (it's not installed by default), Mint and Fedora has the option of enabling automatic updates (disabled by default), Arch has no mechanism for automatic updates.

Which ones are these "most distros"?


Distros have mirrors and they don't know which one you use. The updaters don't send user IDs and downloading the package lists is separate from downloading the packages. So targeted backdoor distrubution is much harder than a company's web UI with user logins targeting a specific user.


Signal pushing updates every other day is pretty much a security anti-pattern though. It makes it almost as vulnerable as a web app to this kind of thing, but this isn't the typical Linux software experience by any stretch.


A typical user experience is Ubuntu/Fedora with Auto Updates from repos enabled.


Can you honestly say that you never ever updated anything in a Linux distro without first reading all the code, comparing all the checksums etc?


The checksums are verified automatically, based on a key bootstrapped by the original install (which could, though likely not done, be verified by other means). As happened with xz, you either get everyone or no-one.


I've been doing some RAG prototypes with hybrid search using pg_textsearch plus pgvector and have been very pleased with the results. Happy to see a 1.0 release!


Do you have LongMemEval numbers for pgvector vs pgvector+ hybrid search?


Relevant to this story, laser eye surgery was developed in the late 80s/early 90s and can improve sight to the level that some who were legally blind no longer are.


> Relevant to this story

Is it? The Author mentions he has degenerated optical nerves from birth, I don't think laser fixes that.


Yeah, but don't expect this level of fine granularity from government, any government, thats ridiculous expectations. Heck, I wouldn't expect it neither from any private company as a default state.


I wouldn't expect it from any goverment either, but I would expect it from someone who allegedly read the story and is trying to share relevant information.


It means that especially those who went to the island but also most of the others don't care about protecting children. They merely see a way to consolidate power and are jumping on it.


I love using AI and find it greatly increases my productivity, but the dirty little secret is that you have to actually read what it writes. Both because it often makes mistakes both large and small that need to be corrected (or things that even if not outright wrong, do not match the style/architecture of the project), and because you have to be able to understand it for future maintenance. One other thing I've noticed through the years is that a surprising number of developers are "write only". Reading someone else's code and working out what it's doing and why is its own skillset. I am definitely concerned that the conflux of these two things is going to create a junk code mountain in the very near future. Humans willing to untangle it might find themselves in high demand.


Strongly agreed.

And, as well as noticing actual semantic issues, it's worth noting where they've mixed up abstractions or just allowed a file to grow to an unsustainable size and needs refactoring. You can ask the AI agent to do the refactoring, with some guidance (e.g. split up this file into three files named x, y, z; put this sort of thing in x, ...). This helps you as a human to understand their changes, and also helps the AI. It also makes you feel in control of the overall code design, even though you're no longer writing all the details.

They'll often need a little final tuning afterwards (either by hand or ask the AI again) e.g. move this flag from x to y. As is often the case, it's just like you have an enthusiastic and very fast but quite junior dev working for you.


Maybe we should adapt cs studies to be more focused on debugging than creating code?


Jeffrey Skilling, as a major example. Sam Bankman-Fried, Elizabeth Holmes, Martin Shkreli, just to name a few


Well, those committed the only crime that matters in the US: they stole from the rich.


I literally saw it on video. I don't care who tells me it didn't happen, it very clearly did.


You saw what you wanted to see.


Pffft. Nobody wanted to see that, but he did it anyway.


[flagged]


> Taking a break from Reddit

> Yes, seeing someone on the spectrum (who’s got no political gesture training) spaz out on stage is incredibly cringy

Saying take a break from Reddit after posting the most Reddit ass comment I've ever seen.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: