Just as an example, any device on your home network could have a web interface which you could access from anywhere using a web browser. All the smart light bulbs and things which need some stupid account on some service could be made so they're controlled by the user instead of some company.

I've set up things like this on my home network but it's a pain because I need to deal with port forwarding, and if I have more than one device I need to use a reverse proxy.

That article is from 20 years ago by the way

I can't be the only person to see the irony here. Do they also have a drive-thru to report car theft?

These tech gadgets are the annoying experience we've all had of someone taking a look at a problem from the outside and proposing unhelpful "solutions" that won't work because they don't fully understand it.

It reminds me of conversations I've had with people who suffer from insomnia. They say that everyone has some suggestion to just try melatonin, or not use screens before bed, or whatever. As though they haven't tried these things.

Yes they're just trying to be helpful, but it comes off as patronizing.

I work in a building with Destination Dispatch elevators so I'm used to them. I have the opposite problem where I'll get into a normal elevator and just stand there without pushing anything.

The featured article is about exactly this.

>On 14 February 2019, OpenAI announced a language model called GPT-2

>OpenAI declared GPT-2 was too risky to release, citing concerns about safety and abuse.

>People with power and money took note: in July of that year, Microsoft invested $1bn in OpenAI.

It's not a 100% gold standard RCT or whatever, but the idea that this is good PR for AI companies is backed up by recent history. What evidence do you want to see?

>HuggingFace appears to have put out a press release about this before they knew this was a rogue OpenAI model

Huggingface's blog doesn't mention OpenAI by name but it explicitly mentions that the attack was by an "autonomous AI agent" and that they defended themselves with another AI agent.

If you have some disagreement with the premise of the article maybe you could share it in a top level comment?

Conversely if both companies involved thought this would be bad for the AI industry, they would be perfectly capable of keeping it just between themselves and not putting out press releases about it.

Do you disagree that this is good PR for them? If so I'm curious why.

Even if OpenAI is being 100% honest in their reporting on this it's still good marketing for them. The fact that this outcome is good for their business and stock price makes me suspicious about how much this was a complete accident vs an "accident" that they allowed to happen by setting up the right environment for it. The company that was hacked is also an AI company, so they also have every reason to boost AI's presence in society's collective mind.

There is a conversation to be had about the possible dangers of AI, but skepticism is warranted when the companies making money off of it are the ones pushing the stories.

>a Cyberdyne Systems T-800 armed with a shotgun breaking down their front door.

For comparison, we've had the technology to make killer robots which automatically aim and shoot at human beings for 10+ years now, long before LLMs got big. But Boston Dynamics or whatever did not manufacture hype to anywhere near the same degree as AI companies are doing.

I'm always cautious when reading nonfiction because it's hard for me to tell if the author knows what they're talking about when I'm not an expert myself. Using awards is a good metric. Maybe.

I am curious what the "score" for each book means. Is it calculated by giving each award a certain weight and adding them up?

>(2) is on us a little bit. Cultural monoculture is not good. Following the herd is not good.

I don't think this is it. People just want to be able to watch things without too much hassle and without paying too much money. Some people will enjoy following the latest trend, but there are always many more people not watching any particular show than are watching it.

The fact that torrents make it so much easier to find what you want shows that there's nothing technically difficult about this. It's all caused by stupid profit incentives which make the consumer experience so much worse than it needs to be.

I think this is the funniest sentence I've ever read on Hackernews.

What are we doing with our lives?

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48662452

I get that they're using liquid coolant at higher than usual temperatures, but why couldn't they do that before? Most of the comparison in the article is for air cooled datacenters but what about other liquid cooled ones?

Surely in all the previous datacenters that have been designed there has been someone doing the math and determining what temperature things need to run at, how much energy it will use, how much heat it all will produce, etc.

edit: just saw this:

>Previous liquid-cooled servers were hybrid: GPUs and CPUs got cold plates, but the rest of the system stayed air-cooled, with finned heat sinks designed to shed heat into moving air. In a fully liquid-cooled server, the cooling for these components needed to be completely redesigned to use liquid.