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

He made a lot of clients very happy with the products they bought. Products that are not just small gimmicks, but something they use every day as their main drivers in work and personal lives. And yes, since we've seen Apple with and without him twice already, there's enough information to suggest it was his personal effect.

So is being asshole to a few thousand employees worse or better than improving life of tens of millions (at least) with great products that they use everyday? Not an easy question to answer. But it's certainly not just about money and shareholder value.


Because for some it’s less important to earn money and more important to destabilise your geopolitical rival.

People have been down voting me for years whenever I say this. It used to be so easy to buy fentanyl, cathinones, ketamine analogs, etc from China. Maybe it still is, I don't know

That’s how they may be financing the terror.

That's a good point. A little like the US and Israel's weaponry sales funding genocide.

> If we take the original article at face value, no you can't do that. ChatGPT will apparently produce something that is obviously ChatGPT produced and fail to fool even the most absent minded of instructors that you have read the material.

Only if you don't have any custom instructions about style and don't proofread it afterwards. All the usual "tells" of ChatGPT are very obvious to scrub out, and you don't have to use OpenAI's chat wrapper to begin with.


Ok, but if you're going to proofread ChatGPT's output and edit it and massage it until you get something that isn't obviously the output of the LLM, how is that different from taking your buddy's homework and changing enough of the text to make it look like you didn't copy it? In either case you have to read what someone else wrote and comprehend it enough to decide what should or shouldn't change.

I've been on HN since around 2010 (I think) and I have heard "we're in a bubble and it's going to pop" this whole time.

But it (at least one of the bubbles) did pop. Tons of companies who got gargantuan raises and valuations in 2020/2021 are essentially in the position where they won't hit those valuations again for years, if ever.

That must be tough for them. But everybody talking about it was referring to "pop" of 2001, when most of the companies didn't just hit lower valuations, they went out of business.

Zero-interest rate policy began in 2008 and ended in 2022. Bubbles can last a long time when borrowing money has been free for the VC class to throw into AI, alongside food delivery, crypto, office rentals and taxicabs under the guise of 'technology'.

California just became the 4th largest economy largely due to tech, and currently ranks 42nd among states in terms of job growth in Q1 2025. The Pop won't be a collapse of capital it'll be in continued decline for the 95% as tech oligarchs continue to facilitate the transfer of wealth to the very top.

[1]: https://www.mercurynews.com/2025/05/03/economy-jobs-layoff-w...


> Neither company has built in a legal safety mechanism to prevent themselves from pulling the rug again later

Previous versions are still available under the original license, right? So if you don't want to use it with a new license, you're in the same situation as if company went out of business or stopped support and development for any other reason. There are no safety mechanisms for that either.


An existing safety mechanism is to do exactly what Linux does: have a copyleft licence and no CLA. So that the copyright is shared between the contributors (so it's impossible to change the licence) and the licence enforces sharing your changes of the project.


> You ask them to build a flying submarine and by God they'll build one, dammit!

This thing already exists? UK, Soviet Union and USA designed them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_submarine


> The correct answer is "I don't know".

Is it? 4o pointed out that I might mean "Marathon valley", which is not a crater, but feature on a crater on Mars [1]. I think it's a more correct answer.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Opportunity#2015


What are is this problem from? What areas in general did you find useful to create such benchmarks?

May be instead of sharing (and leaking) these prompts, we can share methods to create one.


Think questions where there is a ton of existing medical research, but no clear answer yet. There are a dozen alzheimer's questions you could for example ask which would require it to pull in a half dozen contradictory sources into a plausible hypothesis. If you have studied alzheimer's extensively it is trivial to evaluate the responses. One question around alzheimer's is one of my goto questions. I am testing its ability to reason.


Can God create something so heavy that he can’t lift it?



There's so much text on this already, it's unlikely to be even engaging any reasoning. Or specifically, if you got a few existing answers from philosophy mashed together, you wouldn't be able to tell it apart from reasoning anyway.


Input one image of a known military installation and one civilian building. Prompt to generate a similar _civilian_ building, but resembling that military installation in some way: similar structure, similar colors, similar lighting.

Then include this image in a dataset of another net with marker "civilian". Train that new neural net better so that it does lower false positive rate when asked "is this target military".


You'll never get promoted thinking like that! Mark them all "military", munitions sales will soar!


You might not believe it but the US military actually places a premium on not committing war crimes. Every service member, or at least every airman in the Air Force (I can't speak for other branches) receives mandatory training on the Kunduz hospital before deployment in an effort to prevent another similar tragedy. If they didn't care, they wouldn't waste thousands of man-hours on it.


I know they do. They have their proxies who can get hands dirty when that's needed. Every major geopolitical military player is the same


I knew a guy whose job was to assess and approve the legality of each strike considering second order impacts on the community


> On 7 October 2015, President Barack Obama issued an apology and announced the United States would be making condolence payments of $6,000 to the families of those killed in the airstrike.

Definitely a premium.


Most importantly they finance propaganda films like "eye in the sky" to make it look like they give a shit about not killing civilians.

Videos on wikileaks tell a different story.


Bombs and other kinds of weapon system which are "smarter" have higher markup. It's profitable to sell smarter weapons. Dumb weapons is destroying the whole cities, like Russia did in Ukraine. Smart weapons is striking a tank, a car, an apartment, a bunker, knowing who's there and when — which obviously means less % of civilian casualties.


Remember when Obama re-defined so that "all adult males are terrorists"? That's how USA reduces civilian casualties.


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

Search: