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

There is a difference between 'totally feasable' and 'inhuman and stupid'.

Its totally feasable in an emergency situation or if you just want to live like this.

But otherwise? its not okay. Peple want save spaces. A toilet at night, a bed. And not random poeple looking into your car and not shitting on the side of a street.


It doesn't has to be good yet.

We just started adding AI to every aspect of products. Things like this takes time.

And in my company it adds already value. In another company we can now do tasks we were unable to do before. It increases data quality by a relevant amount. Hard to determine a ROI for things like this.


Given the amount of money being pumped into it, it has a pretty short expected lifespan if it doesn't get good fast. Promises of jam tomorrow will only go so far.


What we do right now is to introduce it to the whole ecosystem. This costs money.

AI / ml will not go away anymore.

And the money we pumpe into it? Doesn't matter. Our tech companies and VCs have enough money to pump into


chicken and egg.

You need people to use it to have value. It needs to have value for people to use it.

The use/value proposition will tilt towards it as a generation turns over from people who grew up with search to people who grew up with chat.

Suddenly itll be a commoditized free feature, that if you dont offer it, people will go work somewhere else that embraces. Give it time.


> The use/value proposition will tilt towards it as a generation turns over from people who grew up with search to people who grew up with chat

There is no possible way that the current level of money-burning can be sustained for anything _like_ that long. I'd say if major players don't start showing a profit on this stuff within a year or so, the bubble will become unsustainable.


Check out how much money gets burned and how much money companies like Microsoft and Google actually make.


1080p looks different to 4k. Just because its 'plenty' doesn't mean 4k doesn't matter.

And we are at 2024, i own a 4k lg oled display now for years. Why not leverage it? Just because 1080p is 'plenty'?


The problem with 4k, which 99% of people only experience as a stream, is that it's over-compressed. A 1080p BluRay is 36 Mbit.

Netflix 4k is 15 Mbit.

So unless I see people mentioning the media, I am always weary of the comparison.


I have watched plenty of movies from a bluray.

Nonetheless, i do think that compression from a high res source looks different / sharper.


Why stream when you can play files from a local media server? Cheaper and I'm sure the Mbit rate is better.


Because you have to maintain that local media server and go through the process of adding in the media you want to see and removing media you are done with if the disk is full.

As opposed to Netflix where you press a button and you're watching something.

People out there aren't much like the people who post here - when they get home from their crappy job they hate, finally make dinner because they can't afford food delivery, kick off their shoes on the old couch they bought at a yard sale and turn on their 15 year old TV they want it to just work. They don't have the interest or energy to fuck around with things that many here find fun and interesting and exciting.

This post is giving me major "why would you need Dropbox when you can rsync?" vibes: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18255896


Because the majority of people don't do that.


With approximately 90% of the HT setups[1] I have seen, I can downscale a 4k video to 1080p and have the owner of the HT setup not be able to successfully ABX the difference.

1: I'm using the term "HT setup" rather broadly, as the primary location in a residence for watching movies as a group; it includes e.g. people who don't own a TV and watch movies on their laptop sitting on a coffee table. Setups where the display covers over 40% of the FOV (where 4k definitely makes a difference) are somewhere in the top 5%.


Yes why not?

Different use cases exist:

Record 8k text and you could zoom in and read things. Record 8k and crop withot quality loss or 'zoom' in

Does everyone need this? Probably not but we are on hn not at a coffee party


I started late but i rememeber when i upgraded my system with an additional 64mb stick, i was able to reduce the GTA 3 Loadtime between one island to another from 20 seconds to 1.

And at that time i also learned how critical it was to check your ram for errors. I reinstalled win98 and windows 2000 so often until i figured this out.


Because its a finetune of 3.5 optimized for the use case of computer use.

Its actually accurate and its not a 3.6.


So 3.5.1 ?


I think that was the last version number for KDE 3.

Stands out for me as I once replaced a 2.3 Turbo in a TurboCoupe with a 351 Windsor ))


For networks


I don't think that's correct. This looks like a new model. Significant jump in math and gpqa scores.


If the architecture is the same, and the training scripts/data is the same, but the training yielded slightly different weights (but still same model architecture), is it a new model or just a iteration on the same model?

What if it isn't even a re-training from scratch but a fine-tune of an existing model/weights release, is it a new version then? Would be more like a iteration, or even a fork I suppose.


Yes, it's a new model, but not a Claude 4.

It's the same, but a bit different; Claude 3.6 makes sense to me.


I would assume that 3.5 means that the base training (which takes weeks/month) wasn't changed but only finetuning happened.


Could be just additional post-training (aka finetuning) for coding/etc.


Big models / huge models take weeks / month longer than the smaller ones.

Thats why they release them with that skew


I don't think that's quite it. They had it on their website before this, that opus 3.5 was coming soon, now they've removed that from the webpage.

Also, Gemini ultra 1.0, was released like 8 months ago, 1.5 pro released soon after, with this wording "The first Gemini 1.5 model we’re releasing for early testing is Gemini 1.5 Pro"

Still no ultra 1.5, despite many mid and small sized models being released in that time frame. This isn't just an issue of "the training time takes longer", or a "skew" to release dates. There's a better theory to explain why all SoTA LLM companies have not released a heavy model in many months.


It would be huge to actually get a real no bullshit answer from people like him.

Either he got some strategy which is smart but he can't communicate, or he tries playing a very long game, or he actually doesn't understand it and is just a normal person and normal people need experts telling them why it sounds good but is stupid or he has some VC experts telling him how to communicate to get money without a real endgoal but pivoting to something else later.


Ground based solar has very little flaws.

Its cheap (its just silicium plates), we will have organic based systems in the future. You will be able to print it in the future.

Efficency is huge. We have so much unused roof space, its ridicoulous. parking spots, house roofs, commercial building roofs.

Why would you think its smart to send computers, which need cooling, up to use the energy over there? Do you know how hard it is to radiate heat away in space?


All the usual 'obvious' points; all wrong.

Rooftop solar is pointless. Roofs don't scale; roofs are not optimally placed; roofs are hard to reach; roofs are not engineered to support the load or hardware. Open cheap unobstructed ground near a grid with clear access are optimal. Roofs are exactly zero of those.

Efficincy is 50% at best - the daily occurrence of the terrestrial eclipse known as 'night'? Remember?

Any panel argument is the same in space. Don't know what that point was about.

Using energy near the generation point is optimal. The heat argument is good; it goes double for a planet that's already heating up and causing problems. Get that shit away from our ecosystems.

Any advantage of ground-based solar is eroding daily with advances in lift cost, land price rises, congestion in cities. It's only a matter of time and money.


Space-based will by necessity be centralised. Some businesspeople like that kind of thing.


> commercial building roofs.

And southern walls.



Thats just not realistic at all. Its so far away from realistic, i'm not sure why arstechnica is posting this VC ad.

You need the size of the area you want to shine it up which is HUGE.

Why do we entertain this? How do people get funding for doing this? Are people so ignorant?


10 years ago, having a reusable rocket booster was not realistic.

5 years ago, catching a rocket booster with a tower was not realistic.

The past 150 years has been wild, I'm not too sure I think anything is unrealistic anymore.


How about we plaster our existing area full of PV and than in 10 years we talk about space?


Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

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

Search: