Like if I have a web-app running on the runner and the agent is navigating the web UI and then the runner (or the agent) crashes. When the agent is recreated back from the checkpoints (or a new runner is launched), it will think it has already navigated to page N, but in reality the browser on the runner might be on page 0.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49900611

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49509018

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49437653

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

It's a self fulfilling prophecy... while us commoners, or so called "activists" or ethicists ponder and debate on culture, morality, law and ethics... The powerful are just living an alternate life devoid of all these moral qualms and are have clearly distanced themselves from the mundane, have distanced themselves from the guilt or any kind of accountability. In their eyes, they are just capitalising on the human tendencies which have been always existed (the seven deadly sins), so the "absolve" themselves pretty quickly by saying that they are not creating new "sins", just leveraging, or allowing the people to go along those sins.

They think, why should they be the ones to not capitalise on them, if someone else might and will. It's a coordination problem of our society. No one wants to let go. They want to hedge, they invest in ozempic and invest in fast-food at the same time, there is no moral compass guiding them. It's for us commoners to debate and think about.

These are the specific traits which allow them to reach the positions of influence or power.

To reason properly about the human condition (eg. World War) wouldn't you need to reason on some facts ? And then reason how some "facts" change the human behaviour ? How can you arrive via pure reasoning to predict how a collective of humans act ? We are not reasonable, humans are not logical deterministic machines confined to algebraic rules.

These are just free $ for them, unnecessary bloating the context

I think it could be the watermarking, but at this point they might be deliberately complicating the prose so that we ask clarifying questions and that leads to more token spend.

What does this mean ? Why "black" ?

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49026015

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48964113

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48781138

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

A scientist has to extract the "Creation" from an abstract dimension using the tools of "human knowledge". The creativity is often selecting the best set of tools or recombining tools to access the platonic space. For instance a "telescope" is not a new creation, it is recombination of something which already existed: lenses.

How can we truly create something ? Everything is built upon something.

You could argue that even "numbers" are a creation, but are they ? Aren't they just a tool to access an abstract concept of counting ? ... Symbols.. abstractions.

Another angle to look at it, even in dreams do we really create something new ? or we dream about "things" (i.e. data) we have ingested in our waking life. Someone could argue that dream truly create something as the exact set of events never happened anywhere in the real world... but we all know that dreams are derived.. derived from brain chemistry, experiences and so on. We may not have the reduction of how each and every thing works.

Just like energy is conserved, IMO everything we call as "created" is just a changed form of "something". I fully believe LLMs (and humans) both can create tools to change the forms. Nothing new is being "created", just convenient tools which abstract upon some nature of reality.

3.1 Pro couldn't do it.. but why ??