I don't have strong feelings about the watch list (use and like several of the products on there so not that worried about them all being frauds), and I think the concept is kind of humorous

Seems easy to read the wrong way though

Example post https://www.reddit.com/r/running/comments/7tnzxy/stravas_hea...

https://x.com/powerlanguish/status/2031390689380946013

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47349229

Points: 1

# Comments: 2

Great! It will now correctly structure chess games, but we've created no incentive for it to create a game where white wins or to make the next move be "good"

Ok, so now you change the objective. Now let's say "we don't just want valid games, we want you to predict the next move that will help that color win"

And we train towards that objective and it starts picking better moves (note: the moves are still valid)

You might imagine more sophisticated ways to optimize picking good moves. You continue adjusting the objective function, you might train a pool of models all based off of the initial model and each of them gets a slightly different curriculum and then you have a tournament and pick the winningest model. Great!

Now you might have a skilled chess-playing-model.

It is no longer correct to say it just finds a valid chess program, because the objective function changed several times throughout this process.

This is exactly how you should think about LLMs except the ways the objective function has changed are significantly significantly more complicated than for our chess bot.

So to answer your first question: no, that is not what they do. That is a deep over simplification that was accurate for the first two generations of the models and sort of accurate for the "pretraining" step of modern llms (except not even that accurate, because pretraining does instill other objectives. Almost like swapping our first step "predict valid chess moves" with "predict stockfish outputs")

https://maggieappleton.com/home-cooked-software

Even if they were paying frontier prices they would be choosing 5 mini or nano with no thinking

At that point, a fine tuned open source model is going to be on the pareto frontier

And, I mean, if they don't, gpt 5.3 is going to be pretty good help

Given the volume fine tuning a small model is probably the only cost effective way to do it anyway

Presumably if the laws become less restrictive, that does not impact OpenAI's contract with them (nothing would change) but if the laws become more restrictive (eg certain loopholes in processing American's data get closed) then OpenAI and the DoD should presumably^ not break the new laws.

^ we all get to decide how much work this presumably is doing

Trivially, the sequence of numbers who are the truncated decimal expansion of root 2 (eg 1.4, 1.41. 1.414, ...) although I find this somewhat unsatisfying.

With the real numbers there are no gaps. There are no sequences of reals where the limit of that sequence is not a real number

The concerns they've raised about authoritarianism is "AI enabling authoritarians."

When they push back on the US government wanting to use Claude to (legally) surveil US citizens, that still feels consistent to me as a concern about authoritarianism.

I think it's reasonable to hear high minded ideals and become skeptical, but in this case I'm surprised that people are trying to accuse them of hypocrisy

In fact, they claim to be pro America and pro democracy and have repeatedly expressed concerns about autocratically governed countries.

Just because you disagree with their ideals doesn't mean they're not holding to theirs

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47161277

Points: 13

# Comments: 1

They will compete on price if they are forced to, but they aren't forced to right now

You probably don't want to use the line number though unless you need to disambiguate

But your write tool implementation can take care of that

1) it let's lemonade reward you for taking safer driving routes (or living in a safer area to drive, whatever that means)

2) it (for better or worse) encourages drivers to use it more. This will improve Tesla's training data but also might negatively impact the fsd safety record (an interesting experiment!)

(I didn't downvote)

Saying "oh yeah the bible mentions that" doesn't really add to a conversation - the bible mentions a lot of stuff!

However, if I downvote you because you didn't provide context, you might misinterpret it as "wow, hacker news hates the bible" (I have no opinion on hn audience feelings towards religion)

So for additional context, one could look up the "speck vs log" which seems most straightforwardly about taking care of your own issues first (although it's in the context of hypocrisy, which doesn't quite match the original thread iiuc)

I found a few others, but none quite seemed like the close match I was hoping for (Mark 12:31, 1 Corinthians 6:19-20, etc)