It's the "aide", the thing that is accused of being a "veneer" that is the actual provably tanigble object of reality in all of this, and it was this indisputable reality that led the receipients of that aide to credit USAID for certain tangible improvements in their country. This in turn functioned as US propaganda and extended US soft power, two things that are much more intangible and volatile than physical and the tangible aide that created it. Where the "aide" tangibly resulted in worse conditions it functioned as anti-US propaganda, as it should do.
When the CIA and gov black ops use the US treasury as a vehicle for their nefarious operations do we also say that "The US treasury is just U.S. propaganda wrapped in a veneer of 'banking'"? We could but it would be useless in describing the US Treasury's operations in general accurately.
All this looks like abject infantilism when all the nefarious institutions that were using USAID as a vehicle for their blackops, the CIA etc, are still unaffected in pristine condition and are simply doing the same shit they were doing under USAID but now under a different government agency label. The CIA is laughing their ass off as these guys are blaming USAID for their own operations.
The 7 billion or more current animal enslavers and devourers of the world would like to have a word, just in case some of have a few choice quotes on the nature of freedom as well.
I think you are misunderstanding the parent's comment.
>the LLM-generated results were read, understood, and confirmed by the mathematician whose work they built on.
The mathematician and the blog author are not the same person (as you seem to understand). Nathanson (the mathematician) is the one who is the expert verifier. He is the person who has the higher value and won't be fired in some hypothetical.
>>They don't own it, they can't explain it. They literally have no value whatsoever; they're a passthrough; they're invisible.
This is the blog author in the parent's description. If their boss asks them what they need to prove that the AI is more than capable in this domain and the author tells their boss they need Nathanson (the mathematician) to verify the results, his boss will thank him for demonstrating the AI's capability in this domain, fire him, pass his prompt history to Nathanson, and keep Nathanson on the job (the expert verifier).
Which is the parent's point after all, because he's referring to the hypothetical job security of the blog author not the mathematician.
> The mathematician and the blog author are not the same person
> (as you seem to understand). Nathanson (the mathematician) is
> the one who is the expert verifier. He is the person who has
> the higher value and won't be fired in some hypothetical.
IMHO it should be illegal to force consumers to have an infinite spending limit on a post-paid service with consumption charges. If I want to cap my unpaid expenditure at any amount, I should be legally entitled to do so.
How many real applications actually want this behavior? AWS is not built around hobbyist needs. It’s built around being a platform to run most shapes of production use cases.
This has been a feature request since AWS was a thing.
>AWS is not built around hobbyist needs
Yes, as if no startup teams are tasked to remain within hard spending targets when they're trying to build a POC with technologies that they are not initially experts in.
It's very common for companies to have a $1M/year contract that depends on $100k/year in AWS resources. (and maybe they have 3+ such contracts.) They could lose a contract if their account gets shut down for nonpayment, it's hard to say how much of an overage they would prefer to having their account suspended, but AWS is optimized for these kinds of customers where every dollar spent on hosting drives some multiple of revenue.
You can set up cost-based alerts (actual or forecasted) that send notifications via email or SNS. Based on this you can set up automations, such as applying an IAM policy to prevent further resource creation, shut down resources, etc.
Interesting to see that some people assumed there are no kill-switch mechanism, and when it turns out they just did not know about it, the (totally valid and factful) comment gets downvoted because it is against their initial assumption. Not what I would have expected on a professional forum.
I do not downvote comments when I disagree, and I think it’s better to explain why I would strongly disagree. Downvoting in this case almost reinforces the notion that the downvoted comment makes such a good point that it causes people to give up on the discourse and just smash the panic downvote button. It’s obvious to me why this is not the case for this comment.
The suggestion to setup some kind of IAM policy to shut things down and stop resource usage is insanely complicated for users who need this kind of feature the most. If I’m learning AWS and just added my CC to it, I am the last person to be qualified to setup this kind of an alert and policy from scratch. This needs to be a single text input in the billing page, like it is for countless spend-as-you-go services. When the limit is hit, the service needs to stop the usage at the customers peril, because that’s what they customer requests.
> The suggestion to setup some kind of IAM policy to shut things down and stop resource usage is insanely complicated for users who need this kind of feature the most.
We set this up at my last job like in 10 minutes. Complexity is a matter of perspective, and if your job to do this, you have done this many-many times, and you have ready to use infrastructure as code templates.
Yes, AWS is massive, the documentation is huge and makes things inherently complex, but flexible too. You can define what behavior do you want when you exceed your limits. We can argue whether this is obfuscation or complexity or what, but based on my experience AWS optimizes it's product for enterprise-ish companies, that can afford to have SREs who knows exactly what to do in such cases. That is where they have their own training/certification program.
For simple use cases there is AWS Lightsail where pricing is simple and easy to understand.
But even if it would be insanely complicated, that is a reason to downvote? HN used to be better than this kind of "I don't like your comment, let's downvote it".
I don't think the 8-hour work day was accepted during the industrial revolution because job providers were convinced of productivity gains. It was won due to the leverage the labor unions and workers had over job providers.
The whole thing rests on whether workers can maintain their leverage in the AI era. That leverage is being eroded by the attempt by job providers to decouple humans from production and productivity (whether they will be succesful in this iteration is, as you say, debatable). The other axis is the attempt to erode democratic norms in order to prevent the majority from checking the power of a wealthy minority.
Once those two points of leverage are completely eroded, the only leverage left is mob power. And as history has shown on multiple occasions, excercising that leverage is ugly and messy.
> I don't think the 8-hour work day was accepted during the industrial revolution because job providers were convinced of productivity gains. It was won due to the leverage the labor unions and workers had over job providers.
Good point. Count me in.
> The whole thing rests on whether workers can maintain their leverage in the AI era. That leverage is being eroded by the attempt by job providers to decouple humans from production and productivity
Being brutally honest, I have zero concerns about AI displacing jobs en masse. I honestly believe it to be a deadend technology.
And I say this as someone that uses it daily.
I am a lot more concerned about the incoming economic downturn. Things have the potential get very ugly pretty soon. This will have a huge detrimental impact on labor rights for the foreseeable future. AI is just smoke and mirrors, something asshole CEOs can gesture at to spin layoffs as optimistic and sound like visionaries while mismanaging companies under their control.
AI-native should mean those who were born/came-of-age/started learning programming in the era of mature AI. It shouldn't be many people (relatively speaking) at this stage.
The term that best suits "people who embrace AI-assisted programming" is AI-first programmers, which is what they literally mean by the looks of it. Clearly, they just use what they think sounds cooler.
I don't understand. I would assume most people don't think small kids should smoke crack. That doesn't mean that they are automatically in favor of creating a 24/7 survelliance state just to prevent that from happening.
Not sure you're aware, but the joke may be on you. It's apparently Putin who's convinced Trump and the Mullahs (not the band) to choose civility over babarity by allowing a superyacht of one of his cronies to pass through the Hormuz.[0]
Russian trolling at its finest, truly. This timeline keeps raising the bar on the absurdity quotient.
>Part of me wonders if Karp might just be mocking recent rants by the Trump & Tech Bro's gang.
You haven't been following Palantir in the news in Trump's second term I would wager. This is definitely not the case. If it is, Karp is engaging in a multi-year performance art gimmick.
Palantir and other Big Tech execs were given the rank of Lt. Colonel in the army last year:
It's the "aide", the thing that is accused of being a "veneer" that is the actual provably tanigble object of reality in all of this, and it was this indisputable reality that led the receipients of that aide to credit USAID for certain tangible improvements in their country. This in turn functioned as US propaganda and extended US soft power, two things that are much more intangible and volatile than physical and the tangible aide that created it. Where the "aide" tangibly resulted in worse conditions it functioned as anti-US propaganda, as it should do.
When the CIA and gov black ops use the US treasury as a vehicle for their nefarious operations do we also say that "The US treasury is just U.S. propaganda wrapped in a veneer of 'banking'"? We could but it would be useless in describing the US Treasury's operations in general accurately.
All this looks like abject infantilism when all the nefarious institutions that were using USAID as a vehicle for their blackops, the CIA etc, are still unaffected in pristine condition and are simply doing the same shit they were doing under USAID but now under a different government agency label. The CIA is laughing their ass off as these guys are blaming USAID for their own operations.
reply