Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | cedws's commentslogin

It’s been said here before, but xAI isn’t really in the running to be on the leading edge of LLMs. It’s serving a niche of users who don’t want to use “woke” models and/or who are Musk sycophants.

Actually the recent fails with Grok remind me of the early fails with Gemini, where it would put colored people in all images it generated, even in positions they historically never were in, like German second world war soldiers.

So in that sense, Grok and Gemini aren't that far apart, just the other side of the extreme.

Apparently it's very hard to create an AI that behaves balanced. Not too woke, and not too racist.


> Apparently it's very hard to create an AI that behaves balanced. Not too woke, and not too racist.

Well, it's hard to build things we don't even understand ourselves, especially about highly subjective topics. What is "woke" for one person is "basic humanity" for another, and "extremism" for yet another person, and same goes for most things.

If the model can output subjective text, then the model will be biased in some way I think.


> It’s been said here before, but xAI isn’t really in the running to be on the leading edge of LLMs

As of yesterday, it is. Sure it’ll be surpassed at some point.


Even if the flimsy benchmark numbers are higher doesn't necessarily mean it's at the frontier, it might be that they're just willing to burn more cash to be at the top of the leaderboard. It also benefits from being the most recently trained, and therefore, most tuned for benchmarks.

Fewer people want to use it. You need to have at least minimal trust in the company that creates an AI to consider using it.

The focus will be on these teenagers but the real story is one of security negligence by these companies.

I wonder what people like her who were around Musk in the early days think of him now. It’s striking how much he’s changed. When I see videos of him speaking 20, even 10 years ago, he seems much more grounded, inspired, maybe even intellectual.

Something has happened to him I feel. Maybe drugs brought out the storm inside that was always there.


It's also possible he hasn't changed much as a person and just stopped listening to his personal branding advisors.

history shows that becoming extremely wealthy and powerful often changes people in bad ways

It’s a HN classic, any HN addict knows it.

Your destiny, and whether you’ll ever have a family of your own, decided by Match Group.

The business model of Match Group, by the way, for those unaware, is to buy every dating app (yes, they own all of them; Bumble was once the lone hold-out but not any more) and then do everything they can to make you pay money for premium. They do not care if you get a date.

It’s genius really. They’ve inserted themselves into the social fabric, hijacked it, and then used cartel tactics to take control of competition. And nobody cares enough to start an antitrust suit.

You described social media first, before dating apps.

Because 95% of us don't live on a computer, and recognize the potential to meet and court suitors at bars or social events.

The data shows the majority of people now meet on dating apps. So yes, dating apps are in control.

Ah, ye-olde Poindexter's Revenge. If only an intelligentsia-class had the gall, the sheer epistemic knowledge required, to disrupt this courtship business once and for-all.

Or just stop playing the game. Like a parasite, dating apps only survive while their host is alive. You can pay for pictures, spend hours a day scrolling, pretend to be someone you’re not, blunt every aspect of your personality that may be an “ick.”Maybe you’ll eventually win if you keep pulling the lever. But then you’ve just contributed to the problem.

It’s just not worth it in my view. I gave up. Being a singleton is going to become the new normal in the next 25 years, many Western countries are going the way of Japan and South Korea.

The good news for George is he’s a high profile, decent looking, wealthy dude. He’ll be fine.


Playing devil's advocate: embellishing one's own features is a common tactic for attracting a mate in the real world as well. Courtship is a game, not just for humans. During this phase you rarely get to know the other person. You meet their best facade first, and then slowly get to know the person behind it. If you refuse to play this game, then you're just lowering your chances of attracting a partner. Which is fine, but it's good to be aware of this.

What GP is suggesting is simply making an effort to showcase your features. The most attractive person on Earth could be rejected if their pictures are of poor quality. That's just common sense. Being genuinely attractive by modern societal standards is important, but the first step is making an effort.

Dating apps can be a good way of finding a partner. After all, they're just the modern equivalent of making the initial connection. Their problem is the same as with any SaaS: companies are incentivized to keep users on the platform for as long as possible, which they do by engaging in shady tactics like artificially controlling the visibility of user profiles, while squeezing out as much profit out of users as they can. This is bad news for men, who are overwhelmingly the ones using these services and are willing to accept the downright predatory tactics of these companies.

But in theory, there's nothing wrong with the concept of dating apps. They're just corrupted by the usual user hostile incentives. A dating service with the right incentives could appear tomorrow to disrupt this rotten industry.


> pretend to be someone you’re not, blunt every aspect of your personality that may be an “ick.”

You don't have to "pretend" to do anything, or try to get rid of what others consider "icky", but generally I think most people aim to at least be neutral (if not pleasant) in the eyes of others, either by social pressure or because life just gets easier and less frustrating then.

I'd probably wager that the whole pretending thing you think is required, actually backfires as people eventually learn who you are, so better to just be yourself upfront.


Do you really need to be a singleton just because you reject dating apps?

Are you asking me specifically or in general?

I'm in my 20s and the way a significant portion of relationships start in this generation is via dating apps. If you aren't using dating apps, and don't have social circles, there's just no social fabric to build from. Believe me, I've tried activities, they don't really work. It's extremely difficult to build enough rapport with someone in the space of 1-2 hours that they'll care enough to ever meet up again.


From what I read in comment threads like this, dating apps don't really work for the majority of 20-something men, either. So your choice is between paying for an app that doesn't work and going out and doing IRL things that don't work. Why would you pay for the app, when you can get the same result for free?

If you're in your 20s you should change your life so that you live a lifestyle with easy social connections and ways to find partners. Being alone too much in your age will give you permanent mental damage.

So change careers, change city, change country, change whatever is needed so that you can have a decent life.


What do you mean by the permanent damage part?

I actually go out a lot, and moved across the world to Tokyo four months ago. The problem is not meeting people. I can make surface level connections every day of the week. The problem is finding people who want to stick around.


If it's only been four months, then you don't have to worry. To make deeper than surface level connections, find a group activity and show up repeatedly (this can be work or school as well). But perhaps the Japanese aren't too interested in making friends with foreigners? The part about moving I mentioned is also about moving to a place where people are more sociable, I don't know if Tokyo is it.

Permanent mental damage is rather from years spent in loneliness, or lovelessness, or poverty, or any other kind of unsustainable personal situation.


> blunt every aspect of your personality that may be an “ick.”

That’s not what was meant and you know it.

Ten years into a relationship, I sometimes leave my dinner dishes in the sink and wash them in the morning. Had I done that early on in my relationship—or had those dishes in a photo on a dating site—I’d sabotage my chances with a lot of people.

The same is true for interests. Maybe you really like guns: marksmanship, customizing them, restoring them, and so on. If you have guns front and center in your dating app pics you are going to alienate a lot of people. Plenty of those same people would enjoy being introduced to that hobby once you are in a relationship! But guns being a photographed part of your dating-site-identity is not going to help your chances. The people who swipe left are avoiding gun nuts, misogynists, etc. Putting guns in your picture only sabotages yourself.

That’s not “I have to totally be someone I’m not and remove every single thing someone might find objectionable”. That’s basic social awareness and understanding that there’s a time and a place for presenting different parts of yourself.


>That’s not what was meant and you know it.

I believe the zoomer interpretation of "icks" refers to childish/petty reasons to give up on perusing someone, not something like lack of cleanliness.


The zoomer interpretation of "ick" is just an extension of patriarchal attitudes. It means "anything that does not perform masculinity to an adequate degree". Fruity drinks, splitting bills, wearing strange colors or patterns, even having well-groomed nails.

It's childish, it's petty, and it's self-defeating. Most women I know are in a vicious cycle of misogyny because they actively optimize for misogynistic men without knowing it. They then come to the conclusion that men must suck, so they tighten their "standards", which inadvertently results in even more misogynistic men going for them.

We often hear about gen-z men becoming more conservative but anyone who is paying attention knows that gen-z women are also becoming more conservative. And, a lot of the conservatism in men is in response to growing conservative attitudes in women, and vice-versa. We have trad wives and bio-essentialist ideology because conservative men exist. And they exist because they meet our arbitrary patriarchal standards, even the small ones, like paying for the bill.


Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. I'm not talking about only dating apps. Wherever there's an algo, there's someone manipulating you. I just deleted and disabled my Youtube history. It's incredibly liberating!

I still see little conversation about the two fundamental limitations of LLMs right now: context size, and prompt injection.

* Computation does not scale linearly with context size, meaning the ‘memory’ of LLMs is limited and gets more expensive as it gets bigger.

* Prompt injection limits the usability of LLMs in the real world. How can you put an LLM in the driving seat if malicious actors can talk it into doing something it’s not supposed to.

Whenever I see a blog post by Anthropic or OpenAI I do a Ctrl+F for “prompt injection.” Never mentioned. They want people to forget this is a problem — because it’s a massive one.


Not quite that simple, that’s vulnerable to an Eve-Alice-Eve attack. If $1B in BTC moves around in short succession the TXs can be linked easily. You need a mixer that splits up the amount to be paid out, and even then it needs to be done piecemeal.

Do all outputs from exchange are automatically trusted? Seems like any should be tainted forever. Or is it impossible to tell whats from mixer?

There are companies (Chainalysis) that track blockchains and ‘grade’ wallets according to who they’ve transacted with. If enough of a wallet’s funds are from a mixer it may be scored a grade lower than the exchange’s KYC rules allow to do business with.

I really wonder if Satoshi’s fortune is gone forever. Maybe the CIA found his real identity and uncovered his keys. Dumping that much BTC on the market would crash the market and probably even tank other financial markets.

My theory was always that Satoshi burned the coins from the beginning. There never was any fortune.

I see it as the ultimate honeypot. If those coins haven’t moved yet the network is secure.

I think you mean canary. Honeypots are decoys by definition

…not in my understanding. The term would seem to originate from one or both of "a pot of honey" and "a cesspit or chamber pot"[1]. Both attract flies. the former attracts bears, while the latter attracts 'filth'; both attributes can be useful. The attractant need not be a decoy to function.

[1] Sidebar: a 'honeydipper' can be either a tool made of spaced circular disks on the end rod for the purpose of obtaining honey from a container, or a scooping tool used remove excrement from a septic system or storage container.


He may have burned the keys, not the coins. The process of burning the coins is by sending them to an address such as: 1111111111111111111114oLvT2

Why would the cia want to crash the market?

Why would they throw a dozen South American coups, import tonnes of crack to the inner cities, conduct illegal human experimentation or attempt the assassination of multiple democratically elected world leaders?

Honestly no idea, they seem a little fash-y for any logical reasoning that i can comprehend.

Maybe they had another insurgency to fund and didn't want it going through the vast ^official^ books?


the CIA actively relies on many means, including BTC, to organize their activities.

did the rumor that Satoshi was Paul Leroux go anywhere? since he is now in the hands of the intelligence services for a while this could be a good explanation for Satoshi not being able to access its coins.

Satoshi disappeared right after Gavin announced that he was going to give a talk about bitcoin at CIA, just one of the many conspiracy theories

I'll stay on a MacBook thanks.

I owned a Dell XPS that officially ships with Ubuntu, it was a dreadful experience. I had countless software issues. Hibernation, throttling, video acceleration, touchpad, all buggy. Not to mention the build quality of the laptop itself. I will never run Linux on a laptop again.


I've had good experience with linux on thinkpads. Booted kubuntu on a framework 13 recently, connected to wifi, all good. Ultimately, if you choose well supported hardware with good drivers, it should work fine, even better than windows. One should be picky about which laptop to buy, avoid broadcom wifi chips, avoid screen resolutions that require fractional scaling, etc.

That all sounds like a Dell problem.. I ran the same Mint intstall on a asus zenbook prime from 2012 to 2022. Thing was a champ.

My Dell experience was also pretty bad, compared to e.g. my current Huawei laptop or a friend's Lenovo.

Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

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

Search: