Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | alm1's comments login

same argument can be made about excessive athlete salaries and really any sports related business ventures. Athletes go after specific stats to hit contract goals, get their bonuses and live good lives. Gambling industry is just one of the hundred detractors to the sport itself.


But all of those stats will help a team win in theory. But you can bet against yourself, perform poorly, and then get a payout. That is the antithesis of good sportsmanship.


The problem is that sports gambling introduces conflicting interests. It's one thing to coast and collect paychecks, it's a whole another thing for a player to actively sabotage their own team.


US sports is surprisingly "socialist", with systems like drafting ensuring that a team can't just buy up all the best players, so the league stays interesting. It seems obvious that player wages are kept lower in a system like this ... But I think they do pretty OK anyway.

Amateur sports (college and high school sports) is also much, much bigger in the US than most other places.

Both these trends I would guess have to do with the US's traditional ban on sports gambling.


This is only the annual drafts. Baseball TV revs are not shared between teams, like American football. So baseball teams in large, urban centers have a huge advantage to buy better players from free agency.


this is quite a different statement from "nothing ever happens".


But nothing ever does if you know the right people. Prima facie evidence is Epstein’s client list which our DOJ is categorically not interested in investigating.


maybe that humans are controlling the creation process and can terminate it when the AI versions are going increasingly "rogue"?


logical or well reasoned argument doesn't equal a casual or factual relationship. The well reasoned arguments on many issues change over time, just take the same issue and go back in time 100 or 50 years to find much less consensus and much weaker logical links. Elon shows pretty consistently that truth for him is mostly just what Elon deems truthful or useful.


So, your point is because we get better at logic and reasoning over time (better today than 100 years ago), that logic and reasoning aren't valid ways to progress towards truth?

If this isn't your point, what is? Just that you don't trust Elon?


do you plan on having a more permissive license?


What would you like to do, but can't?

BSD-3 Clear Clause is very permissive - which covers the majority of the code.

What isn't BSD-3 is around features that are targeted at enterprises, e.g. auth. But you don't need to use them to get value from the project & UI; you can deploy to production without them.


how much do you know about the signature collection process? I can easily see how a large number of these could've been out of fear of retaliation and some out of greed. Many autocrats claim high support numbers on every election, doesn't mean they are beloved.


Sounds like you are you saying the employee signatures were manufactured and we shouldn't trust anything OpenAI says. If so, maybe you should provide the evidence for these claims.


In author's defense he doesn't claim to be exceptional and even concludes his essay with labeling this A.I. moment as “the revenge of the so-so programmer.” I actually enjoyed author's nuanced take, different from the common narrative of AI takeover. To the contrary I think LLM-driven coding is not a tool of power users, but rather a tool of disempowered users. They will bring many more people into the engineering profession and change the profession for many in it towards more complex tasks. Quickbooks hasn't destroyed the need for accountants, yet it allowed millions to become the "so-so accountants", when that's all their business needed.


I don't think a "so-so programmer" would need to google to figure out how to select random lines from a file.


I would have to Google. You really have the library methods you would need for that memorized? I think the last time I had to select random elements from a list at work was...never. Why would I still know that?

Would it be Random.int()? Or Random.range()? Or maybe there's a better choice that operates directly on a list? Or wait is it gonna return the value or a Generator of the value? Etc. Even if you remember how to do random number generation in your language, this specific use case probably necessitates a Google unless you have a godlike memory, or you don't mind half-assing it.


It doesn't sound like the author had to google for specific library methods (otherwise they wouldn't have had to think about the problem for a few minutes beforehand). It sounds like they genuinely couldn't figure it out (even given those library functions).

I don't think googling for library methods is a sign of a bad developer. On the contrary, googling for specific library functions instead of hacking something together using general library functions is a sign of a good developer.

That said, at least for python, I personally wouldn't have to google. I use random.choices a few times a year.


I think the deterministic requirement was what made the semantic web nearly impossible at scale. Aligning on the schema for all the entities can be challenging within a small group, yet alone the world. Doing it continuously is impossible today. Wikidata has tons of abandoned and branches which are no longer relevant or even wrong.

It seems like LLMs and vector representations for words are more practical ways to explore semantic data. Then the specific, reccuring queries may be optimized through graph representations.


A good way to think about it is that the "semantic web" was all about finding some kind of universal data representation for the world's data, and that has failed in large part because data representation is inherently application-specific.

The only practicable version of the semantic web needs to embrace that reality. We need tools for converting, extracting, and interpreting data from one application-specific data representation to another.

Sometimes that's LLMs, sometimes it can be done heuristically, but either way, the notion of the universal data structure simply isn't realistic.


in fairness, the society did self regulate as evidenced by Meta's declining engagement numbers. Many people got depressed from reading Nietzsche, should we regulate those too? Was the internet a net good or will admit that it's a glass half-full argument.

There is an extreme conflict of interest in the OpenAI's proposal. I don't see regular people protesting and asking politicians to act, I don't see small business owners writing petitions. I see a small number of highly invested, very rich individuals weaponizing media attention and lobbying to create extremely favorable combinations for their business.


regulate books and internet while you are at it, they both spread chaotic thoughts.


What a lazy unproductive snark from you.


Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: