You must not have kids. If you did, I’m speculating that you’d get it.

If you do have kids (or if you can empathize having kids), would you be ok with tech that super easily allows your kids’ peers to share/laugh about nudes of your kids?

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47753287

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

I just don’t feel like OpenAI has a legitimate shot at winning any of the AI battles.

Therefore, I feel like “Sam Altman may control our future” is a far stretch.

If someone is high risk, say 20%, then an 18% drop from that is 14.4%. That may justify picking up caffeine.

But if you’re otherwise healthy, picking up caffeine has diminishing returns, and the downsides may not be worth it.

”After adjusting for potential confounders and pooling results across cohorts, higher caffeinated coffee intake was significantly associated with lower dementia risk (141 vs 330 cases per 100 000 person-years comparing the fourth [highest] quartile of consumption with the first [lowest] quartile; hazard ratio, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.76 to 0.89]) and lower prevalence of subjective cognitive decline (7.8% vs 9.5%, respectively; prevalence ratio, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.78 to 0.93]).”

So about 18% relative reduction. But if your risks are already low (e.g. active and healthy diet) the relative reduction is less impactful (e.g. 4% to 3.28%).

One thing I love(d) about live TV (or even live radio) was the community around knowing other people were watching the exact same thing I was watching (and then the watercooler chat around it afterwards).

If there was live chat attached to each of these "stations", it could spark some interesting chatter/community.

I know this already exists OOTB with YouTube Live, FB Live, etc.

But this would be for things that were simply uploaded, and now streamed live like you're doing here.

Obviously, that only works if there's enough viewership/participation.

Native apps can provide a bit more streamlined UX (e.g. Face ID), while also being able to provide more robust features (mobile deposit).

The downsides are arguably higher development costs / OS compatibility, and having to install a separate app.

I see this all the time, and even if I find the topic interesting, I don’t want to see comments littered with discussion about how the content was AI generated.

To be clear, I'm not condoning AI-generated content. I’m completely fine if the community chooses to not upvote AI-generated content, or flagging it off the FP.

But many threads can turn into nothing but AI complaints, and it’s just not interesting.

I don’t get the impression Microsoft has any desire to improve Windows for the consumer — they’re trying to improve it for Microsoft.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46819809

> If astronomers announced that a large asteroid might strike Earth in twenty years, and that we currently had no way to deflect it, nobody would respond by saying, “Come back when you already have the rocket.”

I don’t think the analogy fits, for a couple reasons.

1. People not wanting to know whether they have Alzheimer’s is because of the fear of a fate worse than death — living with Alzheimer’s.

2. People not wanting to know whether they have Alzheimer’s is not the same was not wanting a way to detect it. As you said, being able to measure it may help lead to a cure/treatment. I doubt people are against improving detection — they may just not want the detection to be applied personally.

You’re focusing only on the results, and not the difference in cognitive function necessary to achieve those results.

An illiterate person can “read” an audiobook.

Just like a person that knows zero about coding could (theoretically) vibe code a program with similar/same results.

So yes, if you focus 100% on only the results, then it could be argued they’re the same.

But the OP is saying there’s more to doing something than just the results.

The problem is that most LLM models answer it correctly (see the many other comments in this thread reporting this). OP cherry picked the few that answered it incorrectly, not mentioning any that got it right, implying that 100% of them got it wrong.

Of course you can have an AI target someone else’s voice. My point is that unless there is evidence it was intentional, it’s silly to claim that just because it sounds similar to a human’s voice, that means it must’ve been intentional.

One thing that would help if you could figure out the types of games you and your group might enjoy — or the type of group you and your friends are.

If you think you’d enjoy deeper strategy games, start with some of the popular games in the “strategy” category on BGG, looking for light to medium weight (1.5-2.5) to start out, working your way up the scale (to 3.0, 3.5, and 4.0).

If you’re more into the social/party type games (those are always more fun in larger groups), look at the party category. I particularly enjoy social deduction games in the right group, and those are usually big hits with older kids / younger adults (though I still enjoy social deduction games and I’m quite beyond “younger adult”). :)

One good example is One Night Ultimate Werewolf.

One tip: if you’re interested in trying out some strategy games that are a bit out of your price range, check out boardgameoracle.com and add price alerts on a few games you have your eye on. Many great board game sites run good deals (gamenerdz.com is one of my favorites), so you can often get good deals on games if you’re patient.

If you ever get to the point where you’re looking for something with a bit more depth, and are ok spending money, but you want the money to go a long way, Age of Steam is one of the best bangs for your buck.

It’s basically a system that has a library of probably close to 200 maps, where each map can change the game quite drastically, by tweaking several rules, in addition to a different map of course.

It’s currently my #1 game, and you could repeat plays with it without it getting old, assuming others enjoy the mechanics of game (route building, auction/bidding, tight economy).

But yeah, see if the group wants to learn a new one vs. playing one they already know.

When I set up games for my coworker group, I always send out new options along with a number of games we've already played, and let them pick. (More times than not, they pick a new game.)

When I host games with my family, I always bring a bunch of games, both new and already played, and let them pick (these are usually much lighter [easier] games). I'll sometimes suggest a new game if I think they'll like it, and they usually do. The key is to get to know what the group typically enjoys.