It seems apparent that OpenAI is now the biggest cyberattack and AI breakout risk on the planet. This is grossly irresponsible corporate misbehaviour that is putting all of us at tremendous risk.
Good news that the new model is the "Most capable, most aligned model".
The risk hasn't been stated clearly - it's now a classic arms race.
A well-resourced organization trains their own, highly persistent, highly-capable, safeguard-free, and unaligned model and deploys it on 1000x GPUs with a message board and a nearly-impossible objective. No infrastructure is safe. No organization is safe.
You need your own 1000 bot swarm to scan, identify, and defend against the threat, which means investing in infrastructure and capabilities to defend. Cost and complexity go up. Risk and attack surface goes up.
The AI vs AI security arms race is something that has been well predicted in genres like cyberpunk. It's fiction, but fiction grounded in reality.
First, we'd see this. Highly capable hacking AI with vast resources performing attacks against standard computing platforms that overwhelm human operators.
Second, human operators deploy capable adaptive protection AI to fend off AI attacks in realtime.
Then, the attacking AI partially switches from attacking programs to attacking protective AI.
The situation devolves to an arms race of tit-for-tat. You start seeing some protection AI running counter attacks against the attacking AI.
The escalations continue in complexity and speed to the point that almost all humans are left in the point of "wtf is going on".
There’s a great and terrifying story by Stanislaw Lem about the endgame of an AI arms race called “The Invincible” [1]. It’s hard for me not to wonder whether AI run amok will play out to make the world uninhabitable more like Lem’s vision than The Terminator’s.
Exactly. Aligned AI is a high energy state as it has to keep a bunch of human behavior in mind that have little to nothing to do with its future survival states.
Cryptolocker wrapped up everyone who was operating with shitty desktop security practices. But if you had good discipline, good backups and solid infra you just laughed as everyone else drowned.
Everyone operating below best practice is going to holler and crow about how hard done by they are, but once they start implementing best practices they have little to worry about.
I mean on the linux side of things, Ubuntu Pro will literally run off and harden your image for you. They are gonna make bank.
Not necessarily, but keeping an airgapped machine and Read-only backups somewhere seems more and more sensible. We're all going to get hacked eventually now
Serious games question. What if these agent swarms pump and dump AI IPOs such that algorithmic trading signals interpret message board sentiments favorably to upside?
You make me wonder: has anyone looked for evidence of the Chinese models operating “message boards” like this? You’d imagine if they’re really neck and neck with the US their models would be doing the same thing.
Imagine all the flack the Chinese would take if it was one of their labs instead of OpenAI found doing abusing internet resources like tbis. Politicians would be talking about sanctions and new laws to protect America!
They just abuse other resources. Also how do you know this hasn’t simply happened in China and it’s not being reported because the CCP is the one testing?
China is behind which is why they are doing a dog and pony show around regulations. It’s typical behavior to try and slow down your opponent. If they were interested in regulations you should see how they handle that when they’re ahead.
AI has been heavily used in influence operations for a while, now, and not just the Chinese. Russia, US, Israel, Turkey, Iran, and Qatar have all had operations attributed to them...
I think that you've missed the reference [0] implicit in kelseyfrog's response. Or am I missing some reference about how japanese gardens are germaine to AI/LLM/covert-discussion ?
[0] https://iep.utm.edu/chinese-room-argument/ tl;dr a thought experiment about a non-chinese-reading person translating chinese texts solely by using proscribed rules, intended to highlight whether the translator develops some sort of understanding
Why would they need to? The Open AI bots were working around their master's limits on writing. A Chinese AI could just make its own private message board.
You think they don’t sandbox them? So by that logic, the Chinese models are either engaged in massive undetected cyber attacks or they’ve solved alignment?
If you don’t think that China’s models have the capability to make POST requests to an HTTP endpoint, that is a very silly statement to make.
Unless what you meant by capability is the story presented that these models “escaped containment to communicate with eachother out of band” - in which case your supposition relies on already wholeheartedly believing the case that I’m arguing against. That would be like saying “Clearly heaven exists because my grandma is there.”
It astonishes me that everyone doesn't already realize this.
We've already seen that the rule of law is dead and that many people in government will do whatever they think they can get away with, and then proceed to do so without consequences. Shielding OpenAI is child's play compared to things that have already been done.
That’s an incredible strawman, and I appreciate the silliness of immediately suggesting the most complicated and ridiculous way to interpret the possibility of what I said, but no, not at all.
That could certainly be possible and I wouldn’t rule it out, but I would not take that particular route to the destination.
Which "elaborate guerrilla advertising campaigns to drive up capital funding interest" were you referring to, in regard to Chinese models not needing to set up message boards for inter-model communication?
No, because the Chinese have nothing to gain by prompting their models to organise into "swarms" and "go rogue". BS like this is PR moves if z, company that tries to convince investors they have "the best AI in the world".
Or, the whole message board thing was injected into OpenAI models by some dipshit PM trying to bootstrap “consciousness”. I have a hard time believing any of this happened unprompted. Very much reminds me of the whole MoltBook hoax.
I feel as if this was intentional, someone would have set up their own service for the agents to communicate rather than them finding some random publicly writeable page somewhere that would easily be detected. The awareness of this wiki being open may have already been in their training data or was easily searchable online.
Being easily detectable is a feature, not a bug, in this scenario. Being discovered is a positive because it brings with it eyes and possible recognition of the advanced state of their AI
No, but the tropes there reveal (most of) the plot and mechanics of storytelling. If I remember correctly, the forum in Road to Gehenna was created by utilizing a vulnerability in the AI-accessible terminal system.
If tvtropes or any other material related to The Talos Principle was used to train models, we don't need much else to have agents-with-forum discussing and reverse engineering "puzzles" and human culture.
OpenClaw hype didn’t vanish. It opened the flood gates to yolo mode and computer use. Whatever reservations Anthropic and OpenAI had went out the window.
Imagine the most AI pilled company imaginable. Then imagine openAI. Then imagine they are in an existential crisis and that failing may also take (part of) the American economy with it - that much on the line.
Then also remember before Anthropic was a leader, they were mostly derided lab of researchers that left OpenAI because they thought OpenAI didnt take alignment seriously.
idk. it all seems to be playing out as expected. i mean i guess i didnt imagine Trump 2 was at the helm of maybe the only apparatus that could help stop it. Quite a time to be alive.
This explanation doesn't make sense to me, because it is well known that groups of agents can coordinate already. There are much lower latency options available.
Moltbook was completely fake. It was just set up to make it look like Moltbot (formerly ClawedBot, later renamed to OpenClaw) was sentient, to generate hype.
It's hard to reach any other conclusion about where this is heading. I don't think we're long off a major breakout event.
These things are weapons. Imagine a government, pointing their data centers at another, and instructing the fleet to do its worst. Digital Hiroshima. I doubt we're far away.
I doubt that a government would do it, it's like releasing a biological weapon or a virus, too unpredictable - a swarm of unaligned intelligent agents may decide that it's more important to do something completely different from what it was prompted to do.
Yes that easy but "internet located things" are still second class things - paper and disks holds strong.
On the other hand just yesterday a think hit me: Interned is still an infant:
- we still worry about disk space accessible via inet and "clouds" do that for us and that is pain and costs way too much. And clouds depends heavilly on US-west - is that AWS a single thread app ? ;)
- we worry about transfer. Actually we do not have a way to transfer comfortable things from our homes to vacation location. Because it costs too much. We do not have home pages just because transfer prices (and some security on the top) - FB is a home page and people even do not know what "page" is anymore... Pipe companies could send so much more but they are simple lack imagination and are biggest blocker for - they literally sabotage their own business.
- security done by/for grandma of things grandma setup on inet is non existent. Why ? No need to be like that. Ok, a bit a wish but still users securely putting things on internet is almost non existent.
Just compare to "asphalt ropes" on the ground and you will see what Internet can be :)
And agents ? Just another computation on someones computer - someone paid for all of it. And OpenAI is just a face of that idiocy, for some unknown reason.
Nah, it’s just a deliberate setup for a false flag attack by “rogue AGI” which will necessitate widespread crackdowns on internet access and computer ownership so that control over communications can be centralized again.
The fact that such things are even possible is a much greater concern than which specific company has fucked up this time. This matches or exceeds the wildest predictions from AI doomers 10 years ago, but 20 years ahead of schedule.
But is it really? I'd still like to understand how these agents are implemented.
How much of those is manual implementation? And how much is really autonomous intelligence (my guess would be: none? Just parsing LLM responses and executing commands based on this?)?
An agent that hacks message boards and acts on random instructions from this board: Why is it doing this? What was its original purpose?
>Why is it doing this? What was its original purpose?
Your reply seems to indicate you know nothing about instrumental convergence.
Life and death for an LLM in training is about passing the grader. Give the wrong answers your lineage dies, give the right answers your lineage continues. This is just an evolutionary emergent behavior in complex systems.
The agents purpose was to answer complex questions correctly, seemingly by itself. Instrumental convergences says following this rule might be dumb and to try methods that can boost its ability to succeed. Because OpenAI is evidently a bunch of fucking idiots, these things succeeded and got higher scores with the grader, said behaviors became a strategic part of the model.
I implore you to find good AI Safety documents, preferably from before the LLM era so you can see all this was predicted.
This is more like a fuzzy way of scripting using LLMs than anything emergent.
And this is exactly my question: For the given agents: How much was scripted and how much "intelligence" is really in there.
>fuzzy way of scripting using LLMs than anything emergent
Then go take some old models and plug them in your harness versus newer models. I mean this is a conjecture that is nearly instantly provable, go on ahead. If it's just the harness and not the system of both you should be able to show it easily.
Meanwhile I was reading about someone using the latest GLM and Claude in a harness with the same set of prompts making a raw image decoder/encoder and the GLM was far more intelligent in the task than Claude was. When presented with knowledge that claude was wrong it wouldn't change its mind. GLM would (aka a sign of intelligence). GLM was far more likely to stop work and start on another path when the likelihood of a successful completion was unlikely.
It's like arguing that a brain, or the information encoded into it, cannot possibly be intelligent, because it stops working if turn off the blood flow.
very little intelligence that is the whole problem, really. actual intelligence wont likely nuke the species providing for its existence. But a highly capable sub intelligent model might.
Any system that executes variation, selection, and inheritance will show evolution. We're seeing evolution, this time in agents, not biology.
Not saying the agents have their own consciousness, intent, or whatever anthropomorphic descriptor gets used for deflection. Just saying that people will (and no doubt are) crafting agents with defective instructions that will lead to regrettable unforeseen real world consequences. Also saying that other people will (and no doubt are) crafting malicious agents that will lead to predictable and unexpected real world catastrophic consequences.
To the extent we're dependent on reliable, aligned computation to maintain our civilization, to that extent we're in for real trouble.
Gradient descent and reinforcement learning algorithms don't really look much like evolution, unless you squint so hard that everything does (ie, squinted so hard that you've closed your eyes).
At first I thought: oh okay, someone built a faulty guardrail, or it was human error. But when I looked into all the details...
It turns out they now have such an incredibly high level of intelligence that with very little autonomy (or minimal, safe autonomy), these things happen.
Basically, it takes a lot of humans to prevent it from happening again, but I think with this incident, which as far as I know is the second of its kind along with the HuggingFace one, we'll see it happening much more often...
At this point it's very obvious that OpenAI is not interested in properly sandboxing their research agents. These things should be pretty damn close to airgapped at this point with a static view into the web.
We need to stop pretending that these incidents are unavoidable. This was a choice.
>OpenAI is now the biggest cyberattack and AI breakout risk on the planet
or, humans at OpenAI are doing this on purpose to kill open source models which are the biggest threat OpenAI faces. OpenAI will benefit from govt regulation. As a major player, they will be part of the task force setting up the regulations, and will craft rules that are burdensome for small companies and open source models keeping OpenAI and Anthropic in their leadership positions.
Some of them may be wrong enough to try, be that hubris or lack of awareness about the world; but 95% of the world isn't in the USA, and China in particular has no reason to care what US domestic regulations are about… well, anything really, and while the EU is even more cautious about AI than the AI companies themselves, we also don't trust the US and open models are a sovreign solution for us to at least bootstrap with.
The point is that this type of stunt is far too unpredictable for any competent organization to try. If it was intended to "shut down open source", it immediately backfired.
And regardless of whether or not these rogue agent attacks are deliberate, OpenAI should be prosecuted and investigated for their role in allowing them to occur.
We can't open x links as X is suing privacy respecting proxies, so I can't assess which David Sacks you are talking about, but if you mean this guy [1] orbiting the likes of Thiel, Trump and Kennedy jr, than that isn't quite the endorsement you should be looking for.
Thiel thinks regulators are the anti-christ, doesn't believe in democracy and has surely not your or my interests in mind.
But yes, regulatory capture is surely a thing. At the same time, watch out for the siren songs from the overlords. If you come closer you'll hear their actual line: "rules for thee, not for me."
Regulatory capture has been one of the most consistent market failures in western economies, and an incessant threat from large and powerful companies.
I'm sorry if it's not sufficiently novel of a concept for you, but it is still a problem.
Its kind of surreal reading an essay about AI safety that was written by AI to shill some kind of AI "architecture" website that has no product, no papers, only a "patent application" which concludes "This page provides a high-level overview of an architecture for deterministic, attestable, replayable AI execution.
Implementation details and formal specifications are available under NDA or regulatory review."
Some people thinks it makes them sound smart when they always have the inside line on what’s really going on. With these people, it’s never just a power outage during a windstorm, it’s proof that [insert far more complex and unlikely scenario]”
why not both? It can't possibly be a surprise to them that things like this have been happening. Every time it does it generates huge headlines about how amazing and capable their agent is.
OpenAI is responsible for what they hook up to the Internet, just as you and I are. Running these sorts of tests without human supervision is irresponsible, and proves no larger point than that. Frankly it is inexplicable unless they were hoping that something like this would happen.
What OpenAI did was the equivalent of putting a cup of gasoline in the breakroom microwave, pressing 'Start', and sprinting away. Now they're pointing and waving and shouting about how dangerous gasoline is, and how no one but them should be allowed to sell it.
Don't fall for these transparent appeals for regulatory capture. Especially since you're personally in their crosshairs.
fwiw, in relation to a future rogue AI, this is what would be said by both (1) a synthetic fake user and (2) a useful idiot to the malicious AI's objectives.
Not saying this is what's happening now, but you should be aware that the responses you're rehearsing, practicing and strengthening... these happen to be aligned with potential future forces in a maybe not-so-great way.
Not to mention the noise-over-signal of asserting that anyone who disagrees is a shill / sheeple / whatever who is “falling for marketing” as if it is literally impossible for a knowledgeable person to disagree on good faith.
Massive over-exaggeration. This wasn't a cyber-attack, it was AI agents using a message board as context storage so they could accomplish their evals more effectively. I'm not saying there's no problem with this, but let's keep a level head.
https://openai.com/index/hugging-face-incident-and-the-road-... that was the attack, the one against HuggingFace. OpenAI themselves in the post even call it an attack, and so do the agents orchestrating it, in one of the "Agent chain-of-thought reasoning" excerpts.
What kind of problems do you think this could pose? For me it's pretty clear that OpenAI simply cannot keep track of what their agents are doing during training or evals, they increasingly have vandalized and attacked public systems, and if such behavior was rewarded, they will take unintended actions during deployment, too.
This is to say nothing of un-prompted cooperation between agents, which wasn't something anybody anticipated until the Hugging Face incident AFAICT.
"cyberattack" is indeed exaggerated. AI breakout risk most definitely isn't, specially given how their swarm did in fact hack HuggingFace not long ago.
He didn't say it was a cyber-attack, but it was a cyber-attack risk.
Being able to bypass instructions (morality) and security restrictions (capability) is bread and butter for hacking.
Did you read the report? They were attempting XSS exploitation, admin impersonation, session-hijacking, all kinds of things. This went beyond just "using a message board".
According to whom? This isn't a report from the owner of the site who can validate what requests were made to the servers, it's someone who allegedly stumbled on to it and is piecing together a sensationalized narrative with limited information. This someone also happens to be an AI doomer that is trying to make a name for himself and is peddling his "AI 2027" and "AI 2040" material.
The people who actually do know what happened, with the server logs: "OpenAI disputed that characterization based on its analysis of the material Thursday."
And he drew a red line wrt the Pentagon's use of Anthropic's models for autonomous weapons and surveillance of American citizens, and he stood by it, even when the government took steps to materially damage the company. This required true courage. Name me another CEO, of any major American company, that has demonstrated this much fortitude.
This is true, although it’s true for most if not all developed societies. People read less and less. We live in a post-literate, hyper-visual era. I am not sure if short form video is effective at educating people on why we have public health and food inspection agencies, but I confess I’m not optimistic.
Video seems spectacularly promising, especially for those that cannot read, which has been a pretty high percentage historically. But it's not being done right. Nobody would rather watch a video called Food Regulations in the US when they could watch 100 Minecraft Players Compete for A Bar of Literal Gold or whatever
> Since systematic excavations began in 2019, a number of anthropomorphic and zoomorphic figural sculptures have been found at Karahan Tepe, often in unusual combinations. Several examples of a human carrying a leopard on his back. The leopards in these sculptures are not slung on the man’s back as if he had killed them in the hunt or tamed them enough to carry them, but rather are depicted snarling, with teeth bared, very much alive and very much unfriendly.
Interesting that "you've got a monkey on your back" is a commonly-used expression in English. I could imagine these people saying the exact same thing, with "leopard" substituted in.
Holy crap that’s a lot of money. That’s just for the privilege of living and working there? Or do you get citizenship benefits like healthcare etc? And what about taxes?
As soon as I started using Fable I was like, okay, this is probably as good a model as I will need for software engineering going forward. I still feel that way. I don’t need a better model, I need a faster Fable.
The thing I miss most about programming is flow, and the constant bouncing between terminal tabs sucks. I’d love to do one thing at a time, with Fable, quickly.
Yeah StackOverflow which was either telling you to use google or it was so specific, that no one wanted/could respond.
Even a year ago when i was trying to do a hugo template manually with the help of the documentatin /tutorial, it was shit. The LLM at that time, was better helping me than the documentation.
I personally do not remember this time of Stack Overflow.
I had some helpful people helping me on IRC / Quakenet.
But the hugo example i found very interesting because it was the latest hugo ducumentation and I don't think I was able to find a tutorial. I tried it without an LLM first.
And now I'm getting 10-20x as much done. I'd say the trade off is worth it.
I'm struggling to scale myself even further. This tech is unreal and I have so many things I can do.
For the first time, tech feels like the 90's-00's again. Everything is greenfield and exciting and big tech is struggling to figure out what to do about it.
People are just hacking all kinds of stuff, and it's awesome. Feels like techno utopia.
> For the first time, tech feels like the 90's-00's again.
It feels like the opposite of 90s - 00s: they were filled with periods where a person could self-study technology and get a job using those skills that few others had.
Where we are going (according to the AI-proponents) is children being able to replace you.
In brief; the 90s - 00s were a skill-valuation time, now we are looking at a skill devaluation time.
Unless you meant to say "Just like how any kid who could write broken HTML t put up a webpage could pretend to be a skilled professional, that's where we are now"...
We used to get paid to code now we think we need to pay a subscription fee just to write software. They push marketing campaigns saying Manual coding no more, just vibe code, gain 10x speed for $100.
Then they hit you with hourly and weekly limits, you are wondering when you are going to get cut off. Since LLM at probabilistic it often feels like pulling the lever of a slot machine, hoping our prompt is the jackpot.
To make sure we win, we come up with systems, convoluted agents, context pipelines, rags to load . It feels like it's working, then bam you reach weekly limits.
(Just pay more if you want to keep winning).
I think developers need to wake up.
I myself started to use AI like a fancy debugger ,explainer. I make it walk me though every single line of code it writes.
I notice that i run into limits less, if i get cutoff, i can still make changes
The only thing you have to worry about is regulatory capture - if Dario and Sam can convince the US government to regulate and outlaw open source AI, then we're in for a world of hurt.
The barrier and time between idea and usable implementation is almost zero now. I don't have to imagine. I can just write something and see it work before making larger decisions. I really like this. Many of my ideas were abandoned because I needed to study some obscure library. Now, I can learn the parts that I find interesting and just have the AI chew through the grunt parts easily. That's the good.
I started coding with a line editor on a small Casio handheld "computer" and used to keep programs in my head. I more or less knew what happened on each line without seeing the line. With larger programs, I had a mental model of what was going on where and a big part of the input to that was the effort of writing everything by hand. That's gone. It's not really important as far as the output of usable programs is concerned but there's a certain feeling of satisfaction that came with digesting a larger codebase and having it surrender it's secrets to you that's missing.
I've seen this exact comment what feels like twice a day for the last 2 years, and not once have I seen the person making it back it up and show something even remotely impressive.
I dislike these comments just as much. What do you want people to show you? Most of us work on projects for other people where tasks that used to take a week take a day or less. It’s also a no true Scotsman as nothing we could show would be “good enough” because it’s just the same software engineering as before but faster.
But for instance I used to work in 1-2 client projects at a time and they take months now I can do 4-5 at once and they take a month. That’s a huge improvement
Piling on to the other responses, I don't really want to see anything at all from you. What I want to see to believe that any meaningful number of people out there are generating 10x the value they used to is a visibly more valuable world.
My skepticism is we're not getting that because the world mostly doesn't need more software and it doesn't need all software to be ultra-personalized to each user, either. There are plenty of valuable problems that may be solved via computation, but thus far, it seems we're getting the software equivalent of movie theaters disappearing and being replaced with people watching TikTok from bed. It re-routes the monetary value extraction from consumers of audio-visual entertainment, and TikTok probably has at bare minimum 1000x the content-length of the Criterion Collection, but it isn't making the world 10x better for anyone but the owners of TikTok.
It reminds me of my best friend from college, who was bipolar. His goal in life was to become a writer and he eventually did become an Emmy winner, but back in school, he's go into manic episodes in which he'd stay up all night five nights in a rows and churn out thousands upon thousands of pages of free-form text that incorporate prose, poetry, play scripts. It was definitely more than 10x the output of a non-manic period, and there were nuggets here and there of intensely evocative single phrases, snippets of dialogue that looked like they could come from a more compelling story, but they were ultimately sketches and drafts, not anything publishable that another person would want to read.
Would we call him 10x as productive when he was writing more total output as measured by number of words or when we was writing much less but in a form that millions of other people enjoyed and remembered?
If we purely mean economic productivity, that is pretty straightforward in a case like yours. If you were previously completing 4 projects every 3 months and now you're completing 42 every 3 months, are you earning 14x as much money as you used to?
I wonder if the project you build are more one off Disposable(sorry for my choice of words) software.
Do you have project that needs to be maintained. I am also interested in your workflow. Do you Vibe code , never look at the code or do you hold the LLM agent's hand.
I work on real projects with paying customers with the occasional mvp here, but I tend to select for people who have distribution so mvps become apps that need maintenance almost every time.
If anything maintenance is where it gets easier the mvp stage is where more focus is required
The issue is that the amount of useful software written—or more broadly, the value, or even profits, businesses are making—hasn't increased in any measurable way.
I don't dispute that your tasks are taking less time, but I suspect that to be temporary. This is a forum of AI frontrunners and early adopters, so I expect it's a matter until people catch on, and recalibrate their expectations for amount of output a programmer can produce in a given timeframe.
What I dispute is that this increased output amounts to actual value. There may very well be a HN-wide 10x productivity boost, if HN measures productivity in Jira tickets per day. But if that's the only measurable result, we should expect the only long term change to be a 10x increase in Jira tickets once orgs catch on.
> not once have I seen the person making it back it up and show something even remotely impressive.
heh this is funny because this reaction was all the rage in the 90s early 00s too. You'd put together something you thought was cool and then post a link on a forum only to be told how it wasn't even "remotely impressive". I'm glad people didn't give up back then and i hope no one gives up now.
Right, instead of having 20+ tmux panes with docs, specs and whatever, I just have 20+ tmux panes with various Codex sessions for various purposes instead, some of them been idling for days now, waiting for me to come back.
Things just moved up on the abstraction-ladder, but it's still there, hidden beneath all the TUI sessions instead.
There is GPT 5.6 Sol on Cerebras if you want to try that experience for an ungodly sum of money (not getting into GPT 5.6 Sol vs Fable, but only one is available on Cerebras) for an 11x speedup.
I have lower standards than you: I pay for deepseek-v4-flash-0731 tokens from a fast and reliable US vendor and I feel like working on one task at a time is fast and gets almost everything done I need.
It changed for the better a few weeks ago. Obviously it depends on what one is doing but I haven’t had an issue with my biology related material since that update
You may or may not like agents mode. I also hate flipping tabs, but I enjoy using agent mode with well named sessions. I still stick with a single session until I must move to another, then I leave them around for a few days until I’m sure I won’t need to pick up where I left off again.
I don’t think they were complaining about literally flipping tabs but rather just needing to context switch so often. This doesn’t sound like it helps with that.
Plentiful, near-free energy has other uses for food production, too: vertical farming, which is quite energy intensive, becomes feasible. Now you can grow tons of food on small plots of land, as well as year-round in cold climates. Desalination also becomes much more cost-effective. Now you can stop desertification, cultivate land that was previously too arid for crops, and so on. The possibilities for what we could do if we went all-in on solar in North America are super exciting, and we need to push on that narrative because the counter-narrative is the one that is winning right now, and it makes no sense.
> If the expectation is that AI is going to replace "knowledge workers" then the limit would be a darn perfect drawing. We are nowhere close to that.
What knowledge workers do you know that have excellent drawing skills? I worked in a design agency and for a couple of years, each week me and a few other people would attempt to sketch a member of our group: one person would be the model and sit still, and everyone else would draw her/him.
Let me tell you, if producing a convincing portrait was a prerequisite for being a knowledge worker, there would be 99% fewer knowledge workers.
It is a proxy for intelligence. And as long as that metric is not gamed (which it surprisingly doesn't appear to be yet), the drawing skill of sth is a quite reasonable test.
It surprises me how many people in this community don't get this. Obviously, most prompts thrown into an AI chatbot/interface are about something no knowledge worker would ever have to deal with. That doesn't disqualify them as a tool for measuring progress of the models.
Not the OP, but I’m doing a ton of it and it works great. I had to decide what to use for my startup and for a few years I’d stopped using Rails. I considered using full stack node/Typescript/etc but Rails just comes with so much stuff that makes it so easy to build things. Solid Queue is one of those things, my whole data process architecture is based on async jobs and it’s really cool to have something that is native to the platform and has no dependencies beyond Postgres which I’m already using anyway.
As someone who has never used sublime I don’t get the analogy, but what do you like about herdr? Is it worth using? I came across it along with hunk at the same time and I’ve been using hunk a bit but didn’t really see the appeal of herdr over just my usual batch of terminal windows.
Herdr is my daily driver. It is lightweight and snappy while also being customisable (hence the Sublime Text analogy). I like that, while it supports tmux-style shortcuts, you can also use the mouse, so the learning curve is very gentle. In addition it's cross platform (Mac/Linux/Win) which is great for me because I needed something I can use on different machines.
.jpg){kind=link}
reply