You're squarely in the minority, mate.
Nah he's not. Stuff has been pretty stable, impressively so. Especially if you keep to certain hardware options which Apple users also accept.
Readit Newskraf commented on Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones ericmigi.com/blog/apple-r... · Posted by u/griffinli
kraf commented on Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones ericmigi.com/blog/apple-r... · Posted by u/griffinli
Oh whatever :P Don’t be condescending about a mindset you don’t experience yourself.
I ran debian as my daily driver for like half my life; now I’m on mac and never have to worry about my friggin wifi driver.
It's been many years since I had my last driver issue. I find that impressive considering how many different platforms Linux has to run on.
Have you noticed how bad the Docker experience is on Macs though, after how many years?
kraf commented on Google Brain founder says big tech is lying about AI danger afr.com/technology/google... · Posted by u/emptysongglass
> Both of these explanations strike me as too clever by half. I think the parsimonious explanation is that people are actually concerned about the dangers of AI
This rings hollow when these companies don’t seem to practice what they preach, and start by setting an example - they don’t halt research and cut the funding for development of their own AIs in-house.
If you believe that there’s X-Risk of AI research, there’s no reason to think it wouldn’t come from your own firm’s labs developing these AIs too.
Continuing development while telling others they need to pause seems to make “I want you to be paused while I blaze ahead” far more parsimonious than “these companies are actually scared about humanity’s future” - they won’t put their money where their mouth is to prove it.
It's a race dynamic. Can you truly imagine any one of them stopping without the others agreeing? How would they tell that the others really have stopped. I think they do believe that it's dangerous what they're doing but that they would rather be the ones to build it than let somebody else get there first because who knows what they'll do.
It's all a matter of incentives and people can easily act recklessly given the right ones. They keep going because they just can't stop.
kraf commented on Google Brain founder says big tech is lying about AI danger afr.com/technology/google... · Posted by u/emptysongglass
I don't really see an argument made by Ng as to why they're not dangerous. I hardly ever see arguments, we're completely drowned in biases.
I know that he often said that we're very far away from building a superintelligence and this is the relevant question. This is what is dangerous, something that is playing every game of life like AlphaZero is playing Go after learning it for a day or so, namely better that any human ever could. Better than thousands of years of human culture around it with passed on insights and experience.
It's so weird, I'm scared shitless but at the same time I really want to see it happen in my lifetime hoping naively that it will be a nice one.
This is quite incredible
Could you imagine if MS had convinced the govt back in the day, to require a special license to build an operating system (this blocking Linux and everything open)?
It’s essentially what’s happening now,
Except it is OpenAI instead of MS, and it is AI instead of Linux
AI is the new Linux, they know it, and are trying desperately to stop it from happening
Do you think AIs are safe? I'd bet that if you would have a convincing argument that they are, then there wouldn't be a need for regulations. If you just assume that it can't possibly be that bad you should really read what the critics have to say. I don't see a way around regulations and I'm hoping that they'll get them right because a mistake here will likely cost us everything
> regulation should focus on ensuring the safety of AIs once they are ready to be put into widespread use - this would allow companies and individuals to research new AIs freely while still ensuring that AI products are properly reviewed.
While in general I share the view that _research_ should be unencumbered, but deployment should be regulated, I do take issue with your view that safety only matters once they are ready for "widespread use". A tool which is made available in a limited beta can still be harmful, misleading, or too-easily support irresponsible or malicious purposes, and in some cases the harms could be _enabled_ by the fact that the release is limited.
For example, if next month you developed a model that could produce extremely high quality video clips from text and reference images, you did a small, gated beta release with no PR, and one of your beta testers immediately uses it to make e.g. highly realistic revenge porn. Because almost no one is aware of the stunning new quality of outputs produced by your model, most people don't believe the victim when they assert that the footage is fake.
I would suggest that the first non-private (e.g. non-employee) release of a tool should make it subject to regulation. If I open a restaurant, on my first night I'm expected to be in compliance with basic health and safety regulations, no matter how few customers I have. If I design and sell a widget that does X, even for the first one I sell, my understanding is there's an concept of an implied requirement that my widgets must actually be "fit for purpose" for X; I cannot sell a "rain coat" made of gauze which offers no protection from rain, and I cannot sell a "smoke detector" which doesn't effectively detect smoke. Why should low-volume AI/ML products get a pass?
I like jobs too but what about the risks of AI? Some people I respect a lot are arguing - convincingly in my opinion - that this tech might just end human civilization. Should we roll the die on this?
Other commenters say it's nowhere close to what I'm looking for, btw.
And let me repeat that I am not looking for the old-school OS threads support. Almost all programming languages have that. It's nowhere nearly good enough.
It has Go style concurrency, look for `core.async`. Maybe it could have been said that it wasn't lightweight enough and that would have been due to the JVM not providing the primitives but they're here now under the name "Virtual threads".
These estimations are pure imagination. I doubt you have `any` real data to support it. Also, that is not the reason why Typescript was created, nor the reason why people adopt it, not even what Typescript really is. Today, almost every Node.js framework supports Typescript out of the box. I challenge you to provide a modern framework that doesn't provide types. And this is not an opinion, nor it is wishful thinking, it is a fact: type checking and strongly typed languages will take over almost every modern software development paradigm.
I converted a few codebases from JS to TS and this takes a surprising amount of time. I won't put out estimates but it's definitely non trivial.
> I challenge you to provide a modern framework that doesn't provide types
Ruby on Rails
Are tests useful? Because this is what TypeScript gives you: it helps you avoid regressions.
If I change a signature, tests fail. If I pass junk data, tests fail. It's like invisible live tests and people forget this.
As in the other recent discussion, yeah, you can live without tests and you can live in JS-land. Whether it's worth it it depends on you. TS and traditional testing lets me ship updates without even opening node or the browser.
Tests are great and the usual argument from static typing opponents is that they almost completely replace the regression safety from static typing.
Types are not the same as tests at all, tests are much better at giving you a glimpse of what the code even does.
For clarity, I'll define a static typing opponent as somebody who believes that the return on investment for static typing is negative.
kraf commented on Ask HN: How do you protect your children from internet addiction? · Posted by u/Archipelagia
Can you cite those experts? I am genuinely asking because the research I've seen is mostly mixed and inconclusive but does lean more towards what OP is saying.
There are tons of articles that say screen time is bad, social media is bad, etc etc... and I suppose you can always find some expert to support those claims, but in terms of actual scientific research, actual experiments, the fear of social media and Internet addiction in general has no more basis today than addiction to TV or video games or even music had in the past, and yes, "experts" in the past went after music as well claiming that it corrupted young kids minds.
I should make a list but I don't keep one yet. I can tell you who comes to my mind off the top of my head
* Maryanne Wolf * Cal Newport * Jaron Lanier * Studies conducted by Facebook and brought to public attention by Frances Haugen
Not all are writing about kids specifically but rather humans in general. There are also plenty of psychotherapists specializing in internet addiction, you can look through some of their web pages to see what they are dealing with. I'm from a small European country, I'd recommend looking into local professionals.
It's true that there is a lot of hysteria and speculation and the grand experiment is still running. I admit I'm also biased by what I see in grown ups around me and by my own experiences. The apps and games our kids use are designed to make them addicted. And wasn't it in Irresistible by Adam Alter that managers of companies like Facebook and similar heavily regulate their kids screen times?
I'm not advocating for zero screen time. There are official recommendations from institutes of developed countries and I lean on those. I believe in limits on time and content and media education. They can also learn to deal with something dangerous slowly, they don't have to crash a thousand times.