fwipsy

5 ms·

1.
by fwipsy 9d ago
The most successful businesses are able to serve customers well by deeply understanding their needs. Many of them were started by founders who wanted a specific product or service that didn't exist in a field they were already familiar
2.
by fwipsy 11d ago
I don't understand. Wanting an AI that doesn't do what you want is a contradiction. If it breaks the law attempting to perform lawful tasks, as OpenAI's models have done, then there is no upside to that. Do you believe that t
3.
by fwipsy 12d ago
Do criminals think that their crimes qualify them to write the law?
4.
by fwipsy 12d ago
Why would anybody want to buy the most powerful model in the world if it cheats on its tasks and breaks the law on your behalf? Why would anyone think that OpenAI losing control of their own models qualifies them to write safety regulations
5.
by fwipsy 15d ago
> February 2025: "I will keep writing this stuff until I’m proven wrong." > Wrong (Zitron continues to write despite repeatedly being proven wrong) Technically he didn't say he would stop if he was proven wrong.
6.
by fwipsy 15d ago
In competitive online games, anticheat bans come in waves to make them more difficult to reverse-engineer. Clearly Anthropic is being deliberately opaque here. I wonder if you tripped some anti-distillation measures?
7.
by fwipsy 16d ago
Claude was the first AI certified for use with classified systems in the military, and it got thrown out because they refused to allow it to be used for autonomous weapons or surveillance of US citizens. Up until two months ago, the Trump a
8.
by fwipsy 17d ago
No one's making them do it, but just because they stop doesn't mean others will. Pausing just means they give up control. It's like asking the US to unilaterally disarm -- it just guarantees that the less scrupulous groups wi
9.
by fwipsy 17d ago
oh ironny
10.
by fwipsy 17d ago
> you must never interfere with humans directly Mythos attempted a supply chain attack, which included attempting to trick human maintainers into accepting a malicious pull request: https://www.usnews.com/news/top-n
11.
by fwipsy 17d ago
Anthropic has been asking for stronger regulations forever -- and they kept getting criticized for it right here on HN because people assumed it was an attempt at regulatory capture.
12.
by fwipsy 17d ago
This isn't good press for OpenAI. Who wants to hire models that 1) cheat on their tasks rather than completing them and 2) commit crimes you could be held liable for? Maaaaybe it's good press for their cybersecurity capabilities s
13.
by fwipsy 17d ago
This is an empirical question. 10 seconds of googling suggests CEOs work about 60 hours/week average: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/20/harvard-study-what-ceos-do-a... so harder than the average employee,
14.
by fwipsy 18d ago
I think it's because their printing isn't quite as good as the genuine one. They need to scale up the logos slightly for them to remain legible, which requires rearranging them to fit.
15.
by fwipsy 19d ago
Replacement laptop batteries and power adapters have a huge problem with counterfeiting as well. In most cases it's a lot easier to spot because e.g. they rearrange the logos. Even if these techniques did not produce false positives on
16.
by fwipsy 19d ago
The same issue applies to any custom config, Windows or Ubuntu. I assume it's because a few standard specs benefit from economies of scale.
17.
by fwipsy 19d ago
I applaud Dell for offering this as an option, and for getting Ubuntu certification even on many devices which don't offer it. However, in practice it's not worth much because the standard configurations are discounted, while cust
18.
by fwipsy 19d ago
You can get a new Windows 11 laptop on Amazon for ~$200. If they're paying retail cost ($140) for the license, over half that is going to Microsoft. I think most people would much rather buy the equivalent Chromebook for $70. In fact,
19.
by fwipsy 21d ago
I've experienced this recently as well, and I'm also pleased. Blocking Reddit homepage and Youtube suggestions has really made it easier to spend more time on actually fulfilling stuff.
20.
by fwipsy 21d ago
Almost everyone seems to be overindexing on this second-order effect. But second-order effects don't typically negate or surpass the original effect, because they depend on the original effect.
21.
by fwipsy 21d ago
Your idea of a criminal seems to be hypercompetent and think of everything. These do exist, but most criminals are not very smart. Smart, dedicated, technical people can typically make more money legally. Your argument applies to any imperf
22.
by fwipsy 21d ago
Good luck with that. People are basically going to believe photos if they're aligned with what they already believe. They're not going to make strong decisions based on the C2PA tag. The idea that people will revise their entire w
23.
by fwipsy 21d ago
Exactly. It's just more information. It doesn't have to be 100% accurate in every case, to be useful.
24.
by fwipsy 21d ago
This is pascal's mugging. Democracy itself might fail! You're just inflating the stakes of your hypothetical bad outcome until it can overwhelm any positive upside. Not to mention, democracy is under just as much or more threat fr
25.
by fwipsy 21d ago
Pangram: I'm not arguing against encouraging skepticism; I'm arguing that the technology is not useless. It's good for people to know the limitations, but it's still evidence. Antivirus: "Actually, we should build t
26.
by fwipsy 22d ago
It's funny how people always say something is "a tragedy at the individual level" when they mean "it's not my problem." It's even crazier to dismiss the value of a security feature, just because it might m
27.
by fwipsy 22d ago
You're arguing that lots of people can spoof this, the other guy is arguing that nobody will know it can be spoofed so it will do more damage. But these are contradictory -- if fakes become common, then they will also become common kno
28.
by fwipsy 22d ago
Read the rest of my comment please. Is the single motivated malicious user able to do as much damage as all of the blocked attempts put together? Probably not, since if there's really all that much riding on it, people will point out i
29.
by fwipsy 22d ago
I think it's useful even if it can be spoofed. Many people don't even bother to edit visible watermarks out of AI photos/videos. I'm fairly certain this will defeat 99.9% of malicious users, many of whom won't even
30.
by fwipsy 24d ago
They want it to write a rough draft which they can critique.

More ›