qarl

5 ms·

1.
by qarl 3d ago
Yeah, I should be using Ghidira in my toolchain. I didn't know it existed so I had to reinvent the wheel. Although - Ghidira is often wrong about what code does. Make it run tests to verify its theories? BINGO.
2.
by qarl 3d ago
THAT is an excellent idea. Thank you.
3.
by qarl 3d ago
Speaking of obscured code: I'm using AI to decompile old arcade games. I am finding the craziest anti-tampering stuff. Three different routines - each watches the code of the others - and if anything changes - tank the machine by jump
4.
by qarl 3d ago
An LLM agent is literally Turing complete. There is nothing it cannot compute. Anytime you hear someone saying "it can't do this, or that..." they are factually incorrect. The denial around these issues is beyond creepy: AI
5.
by qarl 3d ago
> People have fixed software bugs with zero knowledge of what the code is doing and no knowledge of the programming language at hand, purely by statistical pattern matching. Is that even true? Beyond an extremely simple example?
6.
by qarl 4d ago
HA! I'm of the belief that it is impossible to predict other than it's going to keep improving. If you read this essay, you see quickly that his implicit assumption is that this is now the way things will remain. It is literally
7.
by qarl 4d ago
I despise the "next token predictor" framing. In order to predict the next token in this line "The solution to your problem is..." the entity needs to be able to solve your problem. Which is well beyond what people thin
8.
by qarl 4d ago
I love how every one of these "how do we cope now" essays makes the assumption that the progress has now stopped, and what we currently have is what needs to be adapted to. Humanity really does not want to look at what is happenin
9.
by qarl 4d ago
Because they are trained to behave like people.
10.
by qarl 4d ago
As a creator - I am delighted that I can now create at about 20X the rate of what I could before. Maybe more. I have produced more cool shit in the last 6 months than I have in the preceding 10 years. It's an amazing time to be alive
11.
by qarl 4d ago
> I do not agree to disagree I am delighted to hear you agree with me. Bye now.
12.
by qarl 4d ago
I get the feeling we may just have to agree to disagree here.
13.
by qarl 4d ago
This language has been used in this way for 70 years. These are the words that are used to discuss these things. Are you suggesting this plan has been in the works for 70 years? And no, your theories do not make for actual evidence. The f
14.
by qarl 4d ago
My friend, I attacked the statement, not the person, just as you recommended. I see you have trouble with the distinction too. And I'm pretty sure "I don’t know what spectrum you’re on" is also an insult. Naughty naughty.
15.
by qarl 4d ago
WHOAH that is a myopic statement. It sounds like the legalistic argument an autistic person would make. > responding in kind can only ever make you look like an idiot. LOL. I'm so glad you didn't just insult me there. I thin
16.
by qarl 4d ago
My apologies. I should have said: this is wildly unhinged.
17.
by qarl 4d ago
Implying I'm being naive. I apologize, but I don't find the syntactic rules of this site to be well thought out. "Your comments are stupid" and "You are stupid" carry the same meaning.
18.
by qarl 4d ago
Why are you replying on this comment? As near as I can tell, I was in fact right. I just didn't follow the laws of HN communication to express it, on a thread where the person I replied to didn't follow it either. It would have b
19.
by qarl 4d ago
So I can say "that is wildly unhinged" but I can't say "you are wildly unhinged"? You understand that's pedantic, right? But ok, noted: must be pedantic on HN. Do not use second person. EDIT: SHIT! My bad.
20.
by qarl 4d ago
You are ascribing intent where you have no evidence or proof - to an action that was in wide usage long before your villains existed. > computer science papers from 70 years ago Those terms continue to be used in the community. They wer
21.
by qarl 5d ago
I'm wrong for pointing out that this entire line of thought - AI companies are trying to shirk blame by pinning it on their software - is unhinged? No friend, I am not. It is hysterics pure and simple.
22.
by qarl 5d ago
"Learning" is Samuel 1959, "agent" is standard textbook AI, "inference" is older still.
23.
by qarl 5d ago
> One of the main purposes of LLMs is to launder responsibility No it isn't.
24.
by qarl 5d ago
Well... if that's true, and I don't know that it is, it's not because of the agents. It's because of the money. People with money get away with crimes all the time and it has nothing to do with agents.
25.
by qarl 5d ago
Whatever may or may not be happening with law enforcement - no one is confused about the liability. It's no different than when a company's machine cuts off a worker's finger. No one thinks "Gosh! The machine did it, n
26.
by qarl 5d ago
I think it's more likely they want to call attention to the fact it was the result of agents, rather than shift blame. I'm pretty sure everyone knows that OpenAI is liable for the software they create and run.
27.
by qarl 5d ago
Well... computer science really is math already. :)
28.
by qarl 5d ago
Is this really any different than the problem in software engineering - where AI is doing the work of junior programmers and now they aren't getting the development they need? Seems the same to me. And it'll be the same in all in
29.
by qarl 5d ago
This is, in fact, what my kid is planning. They are artistically inclined - make beautiful art - but when looking at colleges focused on law. Why? Because lawyers make bank, and they can fund their passion that way. Not the way I did it,
30.
by qarl 5d ago
HA! Yes, too true.

More ›