"I need to fly to NY next weekend, make the necessary arrangement".
Your AI assistant orders an experimental jetpack from a random startup lab. Would you have honestly guessed that the prompt was "ambiguous" before you knew how the AI was going to act on it ?
Death, taxes and escalating safety are the only certainities in this tech dominated world. So, be ready for more safety in the next round few months/years down the line. Eventually Android will become as secure as ios. We need a third alternative before that day comes.
It's not a win by any means. I hope that we don't stop making noise.
Google serves ads with known scams and nothing seems done about it.
Yet, they are concerned about this.
It has nothing to do with safety, but everything to do with control.
I remember when Google disabled call recording in Android, so you no longer could record scammers. Thanks to recording I was able to get money back from insurance company that claimed they absolutely didn't sell me this and that over the phone (paid for premium insurance and got basic).
> I remember when Google disabled call recording in Android, so you no longer could record scammers.
Citation needed. My Pixel 7a with the latest updates has settings for call recording in the phone app. Since I never screwed around with it, I'd assume these are the defaults:
Call recording is turned on, with "asks to record calls" set
Automatically delete recordings is "never"
Automatically record calls with non-contacts is off
No specific numbers to automatically record calls are set
There is also a note that you have to agree to their ToS to use it, and I'd also suggest being careful if you live in a jurisdiction that requires two-party consent for recording.
In any case, I'm of the opinion that if F-Droid goes, I'm basically going to treat this as a feature phone and stay away from third-party apps in general aside from "musts" like banking.
I believe that is why "escalating safety" and "secure" were written in italics in the comment. Those are the terms Google would use, not necessarily the truth.
It's a a defeat, albeit a minor one. The defeats will escalate until there's nothing left to lose. "Normies" don't care and the tech people who do care are fewer and further between than you'd think.
There's also xeus-cpp which is cpp based on wasm. Xeus-cpp and pyodide are the backends for Jupyterlite [1] kernels in browser.
It's actually a very good way to teach coding in python/c++(11, 17 or even 23), explore language features or your own library within browser and allow students to execute code by hosting just some static html pages and some assets without any backend.
> write for me for the writer, summarise this for me for the reader.
It's funny though. For computer to computer conversation, we have invented (deflate+inflate) algorithms to save bandwidth, time and money.
On the other hand for human to human communication, we are in the process of inventing a (inflate+deflate) method and at the same time we are spending insane amounts of time, money & bandwidth to make it possible!
Imagine going to work or a social meeting where everyone looks and sounds the same(or just a limited set) all with the same perfect tone, body language and communication style. Sounds like a nightmare and I would find it hard to relate and get that "perspective", when there is nothing to differentiate a person.
I guess everyone using LLMs for text is similar to that. If everyone uses the same LLM style, its hard to understand where the other person is coming from. This is not a problem for technical and precise communication though(the choice of LLMs in that context has other risks).
It is also strictly not an LLM capability problem because they can mimic or retain the original style and just "polish" with enough hints but that takes time, investment and people go through path of least resistance. So, we all end up with similar text with typical AI-isms.
There are other reasons to dislike LLM text like padding and effort asymmetry that have been discussed here enough.
We (Asian) Indians make a big deal out of beginning and doing important tasks at auspicious times. That wouldn't be possible without some means of measuring time of day even if its not perfect.
Edit: updated for clarity and leaving original comment as is.
Thanks for clarifying that. Considering HN's worldwide readership, I should have anticipated that misunderstanding when I posted the quotation. I have now added "[= indigenous Americans]" above.
My bad. I too should have considered that the term "Indians" is ambiguous and should have looked up the reference book. Thought the title "Great Plains" was referring to plains including the Indo-Gangetic plain.
Is "East Indians" the commonly used name in the US for the people of India ? I've come across "Asian Indians".
Interesting question. My impression from afar (I live in Japan) is that “Asian Indians” and “East Indians” are both used but that just “Indians” is increasingly common, partly because of the growth in the number of people in the U.S. from India and partly because of the growing tendency in recent decades to avoid using “Indian” to refer to native Americans. Wikipedia has a long article on the latter issue:
I have often wondered why it is still acceptable to call Native Americans "Indians".
It is an extremely colonial term, but its used in the country that is the most sensitive about using such terminology. It originates in a marketing term to cover the failure of someone who was, among other things, a slave trader.
On top of that it is ambiguous and often causes confusion, as here, so its not even a useful term.
Grouping people that way in general is barbaric anyway. There's no great answer. "Native American" is a colonial term too. What do they call themselves? It's up to them. Actually, it's up to the individual what they prefer. I don't like being labeled an "American".
> Actually, it's up to the individual what they prefer.
If referring to a group you cannot use a term that all individuals prefer as they will have different preferences. In general certain terms are not used - for example one for black people is never even written out in full by Americans. If one person said "I am fine with being called that" does not mean the rest of us should use it because most people find it offensive.
> I don't like being labeled an "American".
Being called an American Indian (which is necessary to avoid ambiguity) also means you are labeled an American.
"American" is also derived from the name of someone problematic (he even took part in a slaving raid) but that is another issues.
> If anything it seems to promote rent seekers by telling you - stick to your lane and don't complain. I.e. the caste system
I was wondering if that would come up and HN delivers without fail. Anyway, you are free to interpret it as you see fit.
The guidance was for someone who was struggling with a moral dillema on facing relatives in war and undecided over action. It is not a diktat to work or provide unquestion labor.
For anyone who understood the whole story and backdrop of the situation, a reasonable interpretation is
- you are responsible for your actions but you cannot control the consequences of your actions due to many factors.
- When you detach yourselves from results, you can do your job without anxiety.
- do not let the fear over results be an excuse for inaction.
Give it a read and decide for yourselves if you are not convinced. Even without the teachings part, the whole story of Gita is actually an epic story/novel with some strong and conflicted characters with elaborate back stories.
The point is worrying about results creates anxiety that takes away your focus from doing the job which results is lower performance -> subpar results - it is a recursive spiral. Also results are not "wholly" under our control. Hence avoid worrying about the results "while" doing it.
The final result of any action depends on a lot of external factors for e.g. one might develop a product, but whether it succeeds or not depends on other players, economy, luck and host of other factors that one does not control or know. This feeds into the first point about not worrying about the results.
The idea is to not fret over results and give your best with dedication. E.g. An athlete shouldn't be worrying about their results while playing and should focus on the play.
> How can you be responsible for your actions but not the consequences of your actions
I only mentioned control of consequences not responsibility. It doesn't mean you are absolved of responsibility from consequences of your actions.
Take driving. You can only control your actions but you cannot control what happens on the road. You are still responsible for your actions.
Should the fear of the unknown on the road stop you from driving? Absolutely not.
Yeah, I think GP is right and this all feels like word play to me.
Let's say you're making your ideal wood chair for your living room. You're "fretting" over getting the arms, legs perfectly aligned, surfaces smooth, identical chamfers, etc. But fretting is bad and makes it hard to get anything done so you stop. Then you end up with a roughshod chair.
You shouldn't "fret" too much, but you also shouldn't "fret" too little. You should "fret" exactly the right amount which is... tautologically true, and not particularly insightful. Giving your best is committing yourself to fretting.
(I'm not sure if you understood the Gita reference, if you did you can ignore my comment.)
A better analogy isn't so much a chair made by yourself, but say you're making a chair for a competition. The only thing you can control is your actions. What's out of your control is whether or not some other guy who's an absolute veteran is also planning to compete (making you likely to lose), or if almost no one else joined the contest (much higher chance of winning.)
Another example is in the workplace.
You control what efforts you put in.
But your promotion (or even firing!) depends on a ton of other things. If the company's doing poorly, they may not promote you even if you did a great job. Conversely, if the company desperately needs a new senior person and you're the closest fit, even if you just did a mediocre job, you may get selected.
What's common in both cases is - doing a better job is more likely to be better for you. But there are no guarantees you'll win/get promoted, so don't be attached to that outcome, but only your efforts/labour.
Did anybody read the linked fortune article about Uber ceo expecting people to work on weekends.
It has that paid PR post and satirical piece vibes at the same time. With words like "unparalleled work ethic" working on weekends, wisdom and the part about checking emails right after waking up at 5 in the morning, I was expecting it to wrap up with a hint of obvious sarcasm but sadly it never came.
To be honest, if they paid me a 6 digit salary, I'd be happy to "answer an email" on a Saturday, it isn't exactly doing an 8+ hour shift at the weekend.
Sometimes to me it feels like HN posts come from a different universe to mine. $10 million to answer emails on weekends seems insane. I would gladly do it for 2x the minimum wage where I live. The situation on the market is really, really desperate, especially on the lower end.
It isn't literally "answer 1 email on a Saturday occasionally" though. I've done that for a lot less. The expectation is to work 7 days/week and/or be available to work anytime.
I appreciate that this is the reality for many jobs with lower pay - especially retail and fast food. Software and software-adjacent jobs are not like that though. Professionals in this field have, for the past quarter century, had better opportunities. I understand it's a unique job market right now and people do what they must.
I am in software. It's just that the bargaining power of juniors and new grads has fallen through the floor, but companies are still not willing to hire any of us. I would even work the full 7 work day/week schedule (despite all its negative effects) for CA$100k - which was once considered to be just an okay rate for a mid-level dev. I bet that many people I know would also take that offer.
As far as I know, from the people I know, companies here aren't actually pushing people here to do this. Working conditions are about the same as they've been. Maybe a few are doing this, but there's not a trend. It's just that many have stopped or slowed hiring to the point where lots of people can't fit into the market.
But is this about "habitually work on weekends" or "occasionally attend to an urgent email on a Saturday"? To me, it's not exactly clear from the linked article, but it would be a big difference.
That said, we moved to Europe some years ago, so I have never really seen even a 6-digit salary in my life, even though I'm formally and practically qualified and have decades of experience. So there's that.
This isn't off topic in as much as clearly it reveals how disconnected from reality that CEO is:
"Khosrowshahi says: Just work hard, and success will follow. "
...is hilarious for a company like Uber, where the whole point of the business model is to optimize away drivers income so much that they will always be on the edge of something very much else than success, no matter how hard they work!
Uber is a failure here in this part of Scandinavia. They were made redundant by our lowmakers and try to run some kind of cab business in accordance with our laws.
What ridesharing services thrive there? None as far as I know. The taxis in Scandinavia are in my experience a total scam with drivers charging absurdly high rates and taking the long route on top of it. The riders are worse off in every way.
Please. I shouldn't have to ask the taxi driver to use the fastest route. They are supposed to do that on their own. Instead, they intentionally use a slower route, and sometimes even intentionally miss turns. All this is true in Europe. Moreover, at least in the US, sometimes their behavior can be downright rude, hateful, and hostile.
You seem altogether blind to what you're missing. Uber/Lyft rates are substantially lower than of taxis, and they never intentionally take a long route, as the rate is almost always pre-decided. Their drivers too earn for a living.
Whenever competition is artificially suppressed, you're getting scammed as a default.
You seem to be missing the point that countries have laws that prohibit companies like Uber as they won't pay workers a proper wage comparable with other industries.
I don't want Uber here or any of the gig economy parasites.
Your AI assistant orders an experimental jetpack from a random startup lab. Would you have honestly guessed that the prompt was "ambiguous" before you knew how the AI was going to act on it ?
reply