OK, but by hypothesis the AIs are in control. Now suppose they want to switch to a more efficient kind of data center that would corrode quickly in the presence of oxygen, so they remove all the oxygen from the atmosphere.
Or they disassemble the rocky planets to make a Dyson sphere.
They also don't have clean drinking water or food that wasn't prepared on the ground. They don't have modern medicines or 'modern' entertainment like cinemas.
Most people in my social circles that do not feel the US is in an existential crisis are first generation immigrants.
They see the checks and balances that we used to have, and assumed those structures would constrain the administration to mostly tow the line.
On the one hand, it’s true they came from places with weaker institutions. On the other hand, they’re used to leaders that face real threats of coup, asset seizure, assassination, etc. The current US administration has publicly stated it is permanently above the law, and it has also dismantled most checks and balances.
I basically have the opposite reaction from my first gen immigrant social circle ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Also, unless they're ignoring/ignorant of the checks & balances falling apart, I'm not sure this bolsters OPs implied point.
You need to have an Apple developer account. Then you need to submit your app to Apple for review. Then you need to comply with a list of sometimes arbitrary corrections/requirements that they send back (there is a document that specifies what you need to do, but it is not uniformly enforced in my experience). Then, eventually, you can list your app on the app store.
It’s not super onerous, but it is much more annoying than the theoretical alternative of allowing people to install software of their choosing on their hardware (i.e. download the binary and run it)
For example the iOS app failed first time as I accidentally used "Free" in the app name, and the app declared support for UIBackgroundModes but they were "unable to locate any features that require persistent audio". The dictation keyboard switched you to the app, then if you left would keep recording... fairly basic and obvious stuff. I could have either gone back and argued the case, or simply rip it out which I opted for.
It's now failed again because: The keyboard extension does not provide any functionality when the "Full Access" setting is toggled off.
Well no, hardly my fault you've locked down the usefulness of third-party keyboards, but now I've added a full keyboard in there so it's a bit more useful without that access. I don't expect any users to ever see this. Admittedly this was more frustrating when that would be a couple days work, not just a quick prompt, to fix.
Good luck with your app. Don't worry too much, you can generally work through their issues... but it can be a slow process. Make sure you leave plenty of time between your submission and when you want to launch!
Do you want to release it to the general public or just a circle of friends and family? TestFlight lets you have up to a hundred users forever without ever truly releasing. I have a couple of home-relevant apps I am managing that way.
I think that's a fair question. For this app I didn't see the harm in releasing it. You have to pay for the account etc. to get it onto TestFlight anyway, so I might as well just put it out there. And avoids me having to resubmit every 90 days. There also wasn't a lot of custom "me" stuff in this one, but I could see going that route for other apps in the future.
This is assigning intent without evidence, as is common in tribal politics. A non-charged assessment might use the phrase "abrupt cancelling."
We cannot create a better republic without constructive discourse, and we cannot have constructive discourse when we default to characterizing the views, concerns, and actions of those we disagree with as rooted in moral failure. Even if it is true from time to time.
This chiding from you would be better received if there was a shred of evidence that the other tribe is even slightly receptive to this kind of discourse.
Unfortunately, the norms of discourse are pretty much gone. This is terrifying in the long-term.
If you were to try to convince me a 2:1 immigrant to local birth ratio here in Australia is a net good for the country, you’re first going to have to convince me your a reasonable person to have a conversation with.
If you jump straight in with claims against me that I’m -ist and -ic that’s going to be more difficult.
Here you are again [0], unable to represent comments in good faith.
Nobody said "non-white" and it isn't even implied because a significant proportion -- 35-40% of Australian Permanent Residents (US green card equivalent) -- come from EU/"White" countries.
The suggestions above are consistent with my request for you to review the HN comment guidelines.
Complaining about 2:1 immigrant to local birth rate has absolutely nothing to do with long-time permanent residents (who are locals). It's clearly a fear that white culture is being overrun by brown/chinese people.
Your comments degrade the discourse at least as much as you think mine do.
> This is assigning intent without evidence, as is common in tribal politics
You are calling for constructive discourse and yet your response is an accusation of dishonesty. A non-charged assessment might use the phrase "without presenting evidence".
Any paper like this would easily take a year or more to write and go through the submission/review/rebuttal/revision/acceptance process. I don't understand why the models being a year or two old now is worth noting as though it's a clear weakness? What should they do, publish sub-standard results more quickly?
> I don't understand why the models being a year or two old now is worth noting as though it's a clear weakness?
I do think it's a clear weakness. Capabilities are extremely different than they were twelve months ago.
> What should they do, publish sub-standard results more quickly?
Ideally, publish quality results more quickly.
I'm quite open to competing viewpoints here, but it's my impression that academic publishing cycle isn't really contributing to the AI discussion in a substantive way. The landscape is just moving too quickly.
The onus is on you to prove or at least convincingly argue that the results are unlikely to generalize across incremental model releases. In my personal experience, the overly affirming nature seems to have held since GPT-3. What makes you think a newer, larger model would not exhibit this behavior? Beyond "they're more capable"? I'd argue that being more capable doesn't mean less sycophantic.
It's certainly possible some of the new advances (chain-of-thought, some kind of agentic architecture) could lessen or remove this effect. But that's not what the paper was studying! And if you feel strongly about it, you could try to further the discussion with results instead of handwavingly dismissing others' work.
The onus of persuasion is on the persuader, and publishing a study on old models that no one uses anymore isn’t persuasive. I don’t need to prove anything to decide that you haven’t changed my mind.
By this logic there can be hundreds of studies that all show the pattern, including a 100% accurate prediction of the results for the next model and none of them would be "persuasive", because OpenAI decided to always release a new model the day before the paper is published.
So what you're saying here is that you were never open to "persuasion" and it was just a front to waste everyone's time.
Common Lisp in particular is multi-paradigm. You can write a ton of code and never use recursion once. I doubt bridging this "gap" was in any way difficult.
You mean it's the first of many appeals, I assume.
Trial courts will decide pretty much anything. Then the case gets appealed over whether the trial court correctly interpreted things you probably perceive as uncomplicated, like the 1st Amendment.
> It comes on the heels of a Delaware court decision clearing Meta’s insurers of responsibility for damages incurred from “several thousand lawsuits regarding the harm its platforms allegedly cause children” — a ruling that could leave it and other tech titans on the hook for untold future millions.
I wonder at which point do children become such a liability for platforms that it's easier to just ban all children altogether.
Children don't have disposable income to buy ads/subscriptions. They don't have experience to write about. The only thing they have that adults don't is time which translates into engagement metrics.
In an ideal world, the adults that buy/manage the computers would create age-restricted account for children, and the OS would give this information to the browser, which would just transmit it via HTTP. This is the safest method to verify ages. If an operating system doesn't want to support this, it's ultimately the adult's responsibility to install one that supports it. This would mean there would be no burden on the adults (the majority of the planet) to verify their ages, so there would be no burden on the platforms to restrict ages either.
If platforms could verify ages without inconveniencing their main user base, I wonder if platforms would just start banning all minors, or if there is some reason to allow minors in the platform that justifies all the liability surrounding them.
I guess you are right. I assumed that something like Youtube Kids would have no ads at all given the audience, but it seems it does have ads targeted at young children. Bleak world we live in.
Nobody takes “age-restricted account[s] for children” seriously.
Parental controls and age-restrictions are almost universally half-baked, buggy fig leafs to displace negative attention from software and content providers.
reply