I mean, this was my first question as well. If you say “I don’t trust that guy with my kids,” then you also should not be leaving that person alone with your kids. If you do leave him alone with your kids, people aren’t wrong to say that you very much are trusting him with them.

So I think it’s legitimate to ask whether they mean they “don’t trust Chinese and US firms with their data” in the sense that they do not provide their data to them, or just in the sense that they do give them a bunch of data, and then feel misgivings about it.

Which, y’know, it’s something you have a limited degree of control over, certainly, and we don’t want to fall too much into blaming the victims. But as someone who didn’t manage to actually get off Facebook until last year, I definitely felt for a long while before that like I was complicit in my own exploitation, and contributing to a societal problem. I think even the people still there know that cancelling it is the low-hanging fruit in terms of reducing the amount of data in the hands of dubious firms.

That would be the short story Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut.

Yeah, this is what I was going to call out. Calling it “100% solvable by humans” and saying “if human scores were included, they would be at 100%” when 20-60% of humans solved each task seems kinda misleading. The AI scores are so low that I don’t think this kind of hyperbole is necessary; I assume there are some humans that scored 100%, but I would find it a lot more useful if they said something like “the worst-performing human in our sample was able to solve 45% of the tasks” or whatever. Given that the AIs are still scoring below 1%, that’s still pretty dark.

Yeah, agreed. I must have misunderstood your original comment.

I’m not sure I totally understand your comment, so bear with me if I’m agreeing with you and just not understanding that.

“let me prioritize PRs raised by humans” … but why? Why do that in the first place? If bots/LLMs/agents/GenAI genuinely worked they would not care if it was made or not by humans, it would just be quality submission to share.

Before LLMs, there was a kind of symmetry about pull requests. You could tell at a glance how much effort someone had put into creating the PR. High effort didn’t guarantee that the PR was high quality, but you could be sure you wouldn’t have to review a huge number of worthless PRs simply because the work required to make something that even looked plausibly decent was too much for it to be worth doing unless you were serious about the project.

Now, however, that’s changed. Anyone can create something that looks, at first glance, like it might be an actual bug fix, feature implementation, etc. just by having the LLM spit something out. It’s like the old adage about arguing online–the effort required to refute bullshit is exponentially higher than the effort required to generate it. So now you don’t need to be serious about advancing a project to create a plausible-looking PR. And that means that you can get PRs coming from people who are just trolls, people who have no interest in the project but just want to improve their ranking on github so they look better to potential employers, people who build competing closed-source projects and want to waste the time of the developers of open-source alternatives, people who want to sneak subtle backdoors into various projects (this was always a risk but used to require an unusual degree of resources, and now anyone can spam attempts to a bunch of projects), etc. And there’s no obvious way to tell all these things apart; you just have to do a code review, and that’s extremely labor-intensive.

So yeah, even if the LLMs were good enough to produce terrific code when well-guided, you wouldn’t be able to discern exactly what they’d been instructed to make the code do, and it could still be a big problem.

Yeah. I think none of us really understands how valuable all our data really is.

Most of the “commercial” TVs, the ones intended for businesses, don’t have this. They also don’t have streaming services and whatnot not built in. They’re just a display with a few inputs, and maybe a tuner.

Through the modial interaction of magnetoreluctance and capacitive diractance… https://youtu.be/Ac7G7xOG2Ag

I mean, it’s talking about people thinking that “energy, frequency and vibration are just mystical nonsense.” People don’t think that if you talk about an FM station broadcasting on a particular frequency, or about the frequency of light absorbed by particular atomic orbitals. They think that if you’re explaining that you’ve slept much better since you placed jasper and amethyst on the ley lines near your bed to absorb the negative frequencies.

The implication in the meme that anyone who is using these terms cannot be indulging in mystical nonsense, because these terms can also apply to real things. In fact, though, mystic cranks have been coopting scientific terms for ages, and they show no signs of slowing down. It’s a real problem that people confuse crap with science.

This is what I don’t like about the top meme, though. Like, yes, energy, frequency, and vibration are all things. Obviously. But the top meme is implying that everyone should believe that those things work in the specific ways that the woo practitioners say they do, and that’s a very different demand. More, it’s implying that people who doubt those effects are ignoring obvious evidence, when in fact the people who doubt those effects do so because nobody has been able to demonstrate reliable evidence for them. It has a nasty gaslighting overtone to it.

I think you’re probably joking, but this actually is a thing. e.g. https://scitechdaily.com/engineers-harvest-energy-from-wifi-signals-to-power-small-electronics/