Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49175107

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

I'm afraid this one's close to going down the replication crisis whirlpool. According to Sol:

"Direct replications found no reliable learning advantage, while a 2024 meta-analysis found only a *small* handwriting benefit but a far larger typing advantage in information captured."

Typed Versus Handwritten Lecture Notes and College Student Achievement: A Meta-Analysis” by Abraham E. Flanigan and colleagues, published in Educational Psychology Review on July 12, 2024

There is very little direct textual attestation of course, and I'm not advocating for some Black Athena type of research, but in this context of robotics, simply take note of these two artefacts:

https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/566713 https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/544519

Someone well informed on the literature might say, "Homer was dreaming of robots already in the 8th century BC with Hephaestus' workshop", and that might indeed seem like the earliest possible imagination of robotic creation. But note the sheer antiquity of the artefacts above, and if you apply a layer of very reasonable heuristics, it will become apparent that the Greeks were uniquely brilliant innovators, but they did so by brilliantly synthesizing and building on top of various neighboring civilizations and of course their own IE heritage.

I'm super grateful to the open labs (who, importantly, do not have the word 'Open' in their name), all the more so to the likes of Ai2.

There is no magic moat indeed. It is math, engineering and of course copious amounts of data (and the political maneuvering required to secure it, e.g. how most everyone has trained on Anna's Archive by this point).

Prompt: If A goes to B who then goes to C, can A send something to C?

Response:

We need to interpret best. The phrase "If A goes to B who then goes to C, can A send something to C?" could be a puzzle about the concept of sending something (like passing a ball) and the relationships.

Scenario: A gives something to B, and B passes it on to C. Question: Can A also give the same thing to C? Answer: Only if A can obtain a second copy (e.g., the thing was duplicated). Otherwise, after handing it to B, A no longer holds it and cannot “send” it unless a copy exists.

[Lots of other unnecessary commentary and "scenarios" that make even lesser sense]

All those tokens have to go somewhere

I often wonder why OLMo and Nemotron aren't more popular -- they are gold-standard / "frontier" of a year ago. If we had more support behind these, seeing a true open-source AI system that legitimately challenges OpenAI & Anthropic might not be far away!

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47906796

Points: 4

# Comments: 2

The question of course is 'how'. For the last few centuries, the answer has been technology.

> According to the 115-page complaint, Baig discovered through

> internal security testing that WhatsApp engineers could “move

> or steal user data” including contact information, IP addresses

> and profile photos “without detection or audit trail”.

That isn't really the breach you're making it out to be. Profile photos, unless made private/contacts only, are already publicly visible, and so is "contact information".

Of course these are useful to intelligence services, but this doesn't mean that Baig found they don't have true end-to-end encryption.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45040737

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

* Mobile payments

* Navigation

* All manner of IoT devices

* Wearables!

* Digital versions of ID (Mobile Passport Control)

etc.

So no, you can't just use the web.

Even with the way the presenters talk, you can sort of see that OAI prioritizes speed above most other things, and a naive observer might think they are testing things a million different ways before releasing, but actually, they're not.

If we draw up a 2x2 for Danger (High/Low) versus Publicity (High/Low), it seems to me that OpenAI sure has a lot of hits in the Low-Danger High-Publicity quadrant, but probably also a good number in the High-Danger Low-Publicity quadrant -- extrapolating purely from the sheer capability of these models and the continuing ability of researchers like Pliny to crack through it still.

[1] https://calv.info/openai-reflections

* real-time router that quickly decides which model to use based on conversation type, complexity, tool needs, and explicit intent (for example, if you say “think hard about this” in the prompt)

* router is continuously trained on real signals, including when users switch models, preference rates for responses, and measured correctness, improving over time.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44827099

Points: 2

# Comments: 1