But we know Hitler has a Time Machine that goes forward, he doesn’t need to return to use that knowledge as he already has a timeline here to use. Definitely risks involved here.
If you build an oracle that tells you who wins the war that far in the future, you build a simulator that allows anyone to win any war. Everything is dual use.
That will never work on any complex system that behaves chaotically, such as the weather or complex human endeavors. Tiny uncertainties in the initial conditions rapidly turn into large uncertainties in the outcomes.
Yeah, I wish more people understood that it is simply not possible to make precise long-term forecasts of chaotic systems. Whether it is weather, financial markets, etc.
It is not that we don't know yet because our models are inadequate, it's that it is unknowable.
The problem is we stupidly branded the field "chaos theory" and made it sound like bullshit so the ideas of non-linear dynamics have largely been lost on several generations at this point.
Not just chaos theory but "chaos theory" + psychedelic fractal artwork. Then the popular James Gleick book, "Chaos: making a new science" just sounds like complete bullshit and it sold a ton of copies.
I only started studying non-linear dynamics in about 2015 after first running across it in the late 90s but I literally thought it was all pseudoscience then.
Between "chaos theory", fractals and a best selling book it would be hard to frame a new scientific field as pseudoscience more than what played out.
A plausible alternative explanation for asking Johansson:
(1) They cast the current actor to test the technology and have a fallback. The actor sounds somewhat different from Johansson but the delivery of the lines is similar.
(2) They then ask Johansson because they want to be the company that brought “Her” to life. She declines.
(3) They try again shortly before the event because they really want it to happen.
(4) They proceed with the original voice, and the “her” tweet happens because they want to be the ones that made it real.
Asking shortly before the release is the weakest link here. It’s possible they already had a version trained or fine tuned on her voice that they could swap in at the last minute. That could explain some of the caginess. Not saying it’s what happened or is even likely, but it feels like a reasonable possibility.
My unsubstantiated theory: They have a voice trained on Johansson's body of work ready to go, but didn't release it because they didn't get her permission. This explains why they were still asking her right up to the ChatGPT-4o release. Then people (including Johansson) associate this Sky voice with Johansson and Her. OpenAI realizes it looks bad, despite not being intentional, so they pull Sky for PR reasons.
I’m not sure of the meta factors have driven it recently, but at least in some large US metro areas, it became enough of a problem that some coffee chains have recently switched from having in-store seating and restrooms to pick-up only without those amenities.
I wonder how much this has to do with LLMs making the essay portion of college applications (and even high school grades) somewhat useless at distinguishing among students.
Having a tightly controlled exam without the possibility of AI assistance seems to be the best option left for determining scholastic aptitude.
Standardized tests are interesting in that they measure both raw aptitude and socioeconomic resources. Either measurement is good from the perspective of long-term positive outcomes for matriculated college students but only the former is politically palatable these days
The conflation of the two measurements is a feature, not a bug. After all, the SAT is not an isolated FAFSA and it's not an isolated IQ test. It'd be easier for the SAT company to be just one of those but they choose not to be.
I recently learned just how much raw aptitude matters because my family began hosting a wickedly bright war refugee this past year. She flubbed the SATs on her first attempt, relative to her raw intelligence and her English competence, because she had received no ancestral wisdom about how to approach the SAT itself.
The article is light on the actual allegations, but at least they link to the complaint [1] (so few articles do). The claims are: Public Nuisance, Negligence, and Gross Negligence.
The special damage they claim to have suffered seems to primarily relate to expanding and diverting resources to deal with mental health issues of students.
The table of contents of the complaint is a good summary of their assertions, including:
Defendants’ apps have created a youth mental health crisis.
Defendants target children as a core market, hooking kids on their addictive social media platforms.
Children are uniquely susceptible to Defendants’ addictive apps.
Defendants design their apps to attract and addict youth.
Millions of kids use Defendants’ products compulsively.
Defendants' defective products encourage dangerous "challenges."
Defendants' defective social media apps facilitate and contribute to the sexual exploitation and sextortion of children, and the ongoing production and spread of child sex abuse material online.
- Defendants’ apps have created a youth mental health crisis.
Causality is really hard to establish, possibly impossible in this case. Nonetheless, there does appear to be a youth mental health crisis, and it arose around the time of the smart phone. https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/honestly-its-probably-the-phon...
- Defendants target children as a core market, hooking kids on their addictive social media platforms.
It certainly appears that way to me; but it would help to get actual documentation of intent.
- Children are uniquely susceptible to Defendants’ addictive apps.
There is a lot of science that says that teens are vulnerable to addiction; the dual systems view, a pretty influential perspective, is that sensitivity to reward (particularly social rewards) increases dramatically in adolescence, but cognitive control lags; this leads to an increase in exploration vs exploitation, which is adaptive, but risky. I think they are on strong ground here.
- Defendants design their apps to attract and addict youth.
Like the last, documentation of intent would be the best thing for the case.
- Millions of kids use Defendants’ products compulsively.
This is probably true. Adults too. Defense is going to say that its up to parents and guardians to police the use of these apps. That argument didn't work with cigarettes and alcohol, so I'm guessing won't work here eitehr.
- Defendants' defective social media apps (a) facilitate and contribute to the sexual exploitation and sextortion of children, (b) and the ongoing production and spread of child sex abuse material online.
I've denoted one as (a) and one as (b). (b) is undoubtedly the case. (a) is more culture-war-y, but its hard to argue that a lot of the viral video content is not sexxed up*
* I'm no prude, but find it annoying that 90% of the reels that Facebook suggest to me are sexual in nature, and that the sexually arousing nature of the suggested videos grabs my eyeballs. I mean, it works. But, I don't want those kind of distractions when I'm scrolling to see what friends and family are up to. Oh look, my sister took her kids to the beach. Oh look, that couple is simulating sex on a picnic table! Oh look, Mom got her first ripe tomatoes!
Regarding evidence that social media targets children as a market and strategizes how to continue engagement (aka addiction) I actually don’t think this will be extremely hard to prove. Instagram already has internal documentation showing they’re aware that their application has a causal relationship to the harm of the mental health of teenaged girls, but obviously Instagram hasn’t done much of anything to improve things. At minimum I bet similar studies exist in other platforms in internal discussions, and gross negligence if not intent can be measured via subpoena and discovery. It would only take one higher up writing a slack message that effectively says, I want this feature done, no I don’t want this mitigating implementation that would make it less harmful.
I've recently quit Twitter and Facebook, and I must admit that these apps are mentally addictive in the same way that cigarettes are addictive. I often think about them when bored, wondering what I'm 'missing' with my friends or followers. It's taken a level of mental strength to avoid re-installing or re-activating in both cases. So in my view, the addiction is 30% of the argument. The 30% is that they cause harm, and remainder, which I agree will be more difficult to prove, is that it was done with intent.
Gaming too. And then we put it into our kid’s pockets, and started hiring psychologist to consult on game development…
They don’t stand a chance.
Part of the human experiment I guess. We’ll see where we end up. I suspect authoritarianism, rampant viruses, and a toxic environment while we entertain ourselves to death.
> This is probably true. Adults too. Defense is going to say that its up to parents and guardians to police the use of these apps. That argument didn't work with cigarettes and alcohol, so I'm guessing won't work here either.
But cigarettes and alcohol is legally age restricted. Or did that happen later?
seems like Baltimore leadership is just trying to find ways to blame other people for problems they created. They are also suing Kia on the same weak basis of "public nuisance".
I agree this case probably shouldn't succeed, but pretending that these companies have no part in a ongoing youth mental health crises, and that they arnt targeting youth purposefully, is also not the way to go about this.
> In other words, and I'm hardly the only one saying this: ChatGPT is not a replacement for people. It's an augmentation. It's a bicycle for the mind, to steal Steve Jobs's famous metaphor.
This is the analogy that jumped out to me as well. LLMs seem to be more of a vehicle than a destination. Like a bicycle, LLMs need to be operated with the direction and effort of an operator to ensure it stays on course and doesn’t veer into traffic.
Continuing the analogy, I suspect that LLMs will open up traditional white collar jobs to more people. More people can get to the destination on time with the aid of a bicycle than on foot.
Not foolproof, but you could get fairly high confidence by trying different variations of the prompt and seeing how consistent the output is. If it's the same every time, chances are it's being copied verbatim from somewhere.
It's also a way for them to save on credit card processing fees by trading the fees of multiple (relatively) small drink purchases for one fee for the gift card purchase.
An often overlooked innovation of iTunes was delayed billing, which converted multiple separate song transactions into one bundled transaction to save on credit card transaction fees.
>delayed billing, which converted multiple separate song transactions into one bundled transaction to save on credit card transaction fees.
Uber and Lyft do it now. It ought to be illegal, or opt-in (with a discount to the customer). Delayed billing wreaks havoc on the majority of Americans who live paycheck to paycheck
be careful I disabled overdraft protection and my bank had an additional layer "courtesy pay" that also changed an overdraft and they didn't tell me about it. I found out the hard way.
Yep, same here - there is no escaping the predatory fees. Also, vendors go nuts if your purchase is declined for any reason now. They will cut you off. So you can't win for trying.
This thread is confusing to me. I am in the US and I use Uber. I’ve never had this experience. Every time I use Uber, I see one transaction per ride, and depending on when I remember (or see the prompt) to tip, that may or may not be another single transaction.
Most of the processing fees are capped by law in Europe. They are far lower (and I mean far - something like six times lower) than in the US and the cap is a percentage of the transaction so there is little point in bundling.
Stuff like this reminds me of the bubble tech lives in.
There are a lot of people who aren't on top of their finances at all.
For them, a delayed transaction wreaks plenty of havoc because they're not keeping track of how much "ghost transactions" are affecting the account balance they see.
Now you could argue it's on them for not being on top of their finances, but Uber makes a lot of money from these people. The largest demographics are 18-24 yr olds, ie people who honestly can't afford overpriced delivery but do it anyways.
I think you live in a bubble if you feel it necessary to exaggerate the effects and coddle people who aren't on top of their finances.
It's all a fairly pointless discussion because the simple solution is to suggest Uber, etc. just make this method of charging an optional feature that is easily toggled by their customers. Beyond that, it's an uninteresting discussion, and I don't care to hear people browbeat each other about how Uber is bad and wrong for rolling transactions into one because they didn't consider that their customers are mouthbreathing idiots whose entire financial world will come collapsing down on them if they can't get check their credit card balance for 100% accurate realtime information about their current financial state. Somehow if someone didn't think of this possibility, they are an inconsiderate jerk who "lives" in a "bubble."
There's so much self-indulgent angst oozing out of this comment that it's hard to pick out the intended signal but I'll try:
- It's not about credit cards, it's mostly debit. It's a large driver of the 15 billion dollars in NSF fees banks pick up yearly.
- Having 100% up to date information on your money makes it easier to not overdraft, the emotional smokescreen deployed doesn't change that.
- I don't know anyone with any level of financial literacy who would prefer less accurate data on their money: so your suggestion for a switch that makes your transaction history less accurate is questionable to say the least.
Overall you sound insecure about living in a bubble. I didn't paint people as jerks for being in a bubble, but I rightfully pointed out that you're clearly unfamiliar with a challenge in some people's lives.
If self-loathing makes you feel like a jerk for being in a bubble I can see how you could misconstrue that.
If instead of taking uninformed pot shots you took just a moment to check, you'd see overdrafts come from a tiny slice of customers who get hit by overdrafts over and over again.
No one made any excuses for anyone, it was a simple statement of fact that batched transactions save a marginal cost for the good in question and affect the age group that's using them the most.
—
It might even be profitable for them to eat the processing fee and call out the fact there are already X dollars pending to users who have had at least one NSF in the past year as they check out. Why give the bank $20 out of your most captive customers pockets, to save .03 cents on payment processing?
There seems to be this weird idea that it can't be profitable to do things that help your users.
If you can pause for reflection to go check your past history of purchases to determine if you should make another purchase, then you could probably just remember if you’ve been on a recent spending spree.
Huh? I'm saying Uber should surface when an order is about to compound a pending transaction, precisely so they don't need to go and find that.
You're also again, showing how completely out of touch you are with how millions of people live: it has nothing to do with a recent spending spree, there are a lot of people who just live in a state where they're always near $0.
The middle class version of living paycheck to paycheck is not having a properly sized savings, there are people who live below that. Some random bill or fee landed the same day as their order is enough to get hit with an NSF, or multiple.
People in a certain bubble take this very black and white view of it. "Why do they have random bills?? Why would they have Netflix and be ordering Uber Eats??". You think that's idiotic, so by implying there are people living like that, I'm coddling idiots.
The truth is life is short and then you die. If people feel a certain level of hopelessness and lack of control over the larger picture, it can be hard to get excited about essentially balancing their checkbook before ordering dinner. I'm not going to sit on some high horse and act like they don't get to make "bad" decisions for comfort.
How many people in tech are still shackling themselves to 7 figure homes after the rate hikes and the layoffs to satisfy their FOMO instead of taking a more rational approach?
Most people being hit repeatedly by overdraft fees and the like aren't on spending sprees. They're people who have little to no money, and earn little to nothing. They get hit by overdraft fees whenever any bill is larger than expected, or they get a parking fine, etc.
I really don't think people understand that if you're commenting on HN you are unlikely to be in the same financial ballpark as someone who is actually poor.
Not a bubble thing. Many people living paycheck to paycheck watch their accounts. They often know everything that’s hitting and on what day, for several days in advance, and what they need to do, or will try to do, to keep it positive. Transportation costs especially.
It’s the same mental power you have, but for a variety of reasons they’re having to apply it to stave off problems instead of to grow their assets as is more typical among software engineers.
I never learned how to balance a checkbook. At this point, it's moot, because the bank does that tracking for me.
But it's still difficult to stay on top of finances when you run dry every month. You need to account for all the different ways a transaction could come in: a check you wrote; a recurring payment that you send out, a recurring payment via ACH, debit, whatever; your own card purchases while out and about.
So it easily becomes overwhelming and then you're in NSF territory.
I used to donate $3 at a time via check to some religious sisters. They were very appreciative and sent me nice tokens and letters, but they waited long intervals to deposit those checks, so there were unfortunate times when the checks bounced, and they rightly objected, because their fees already outstripped the amounts I was donating to them. I just felt kind of helpless at that, and sad that a good relationship was soured over $3.
I will also add that I vehemently disagree with authorizing recurring debits on my account, (AutoPay), and I will avoid that wherever possible, in favor of doing my own automated Bill Pay from the bank interface.
I think it is unprecedented in history, and absurd, that a company can just reach in and scoop out as much funds as they want on a regular basis. I mean, many things I set up AutoPay have a variable billing amount. They can just increase the bill and they're still hunkydory to remove that amount in the coming months! Please keep consumers in the loop and in control here, folks.
Bill Pay from the bank is, unfortunately, sometimes perilous and difficult to manage, and you may wish for AutoPay after you've had a few mishaps. I recently received a PAST DUE LATE FEES APPLY notice because of a penny. If Bill Pay can't generate an electronic transfer, then it cuts a paper check to mail out (at no charge, which is great) but with all the pitfalls of floating checks (for a poor person who lives close to $0 balance, you don't want a lot of float!)
I'm not confused how credit cards how work. If someone was checking their balance so that they can properly budget a company delaying the charge would deprive them of that insight.
reply