Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | bauldursdev's commentslogin

If you don't verify identity it's easy to fake.


it doesn't matter!!!

it's a parenting tool, not an online banking system

EDIT: Also the most relevant devices are not laptops, but phones, tablets, gaming consoles. Some of them have such a system already working "good enough" for the use cases of "games"/"game stores" and similar. Yes not browser. But very much extensible to that.


Giving parents control of child mode is much better than the state deciding. If Parents want to fake the ages of their child, that sounds good to me.


Sounds really cool, were you able to verify the correctness of the results?


SAT solvers run until they reach the "SAT" status, meaning "satisfied" or UNSAT. The harder the problem the longer you might be running the program - days, weeks even.

Ideally, what you want is a single SAT value among a remainder universe of UNSATs.

Sometimes the best you can achieve at any given point is a lower bound and an upper bound range, like "greater than 3 but less than 9."

Of course I simplified in my post but it started out with a pretty broad range of a lower and upper bound, then narrowed further, then narrowed further, then narrowed further, etc...until the specific final result achieved K=7=SAT while every K<7=UNSAT & every K>7=UNSAT. I think it ran for a full week alone on K between 6 and 7.


You mean SMT, right?


my memory was that SMT was part of a more advanced SAT solver, as in if you want to be modern/use SOTA, your SAT solver is going to use SMT


Why wouldn't inference get less expensive? The frontier will probably always be expensive but imagine if in 5-10 years Fable 5 is considered a low tier antiquated model, it is still somewhat capable.


They do, but unethical people don't announce themselves. In fact an ethical person is probably more likely to admit their faults, which usually doesn't play well in elections.


From a software POV, I feel like it makes it easier to implement stuff. Whether that stuff is good or bad. If you know what you're doing, vet the output, and use it properly, you can get a nice productivity boost while still producing good code. If you don't know what you're doing, you are prone to go down rabbit hole after rabbit hole of unwise decisions.


I would just like to lightly push back on that point. That bad code? That dead end? That month’s worth of tokens spent on a runaway loop? Those weren’t dead ends. Those were learning points. Experiences carried forward, etched in your mind. So take heart. We need both successes and failures to grow as people. And you are growing. I can see it.


Is this satire?


Is there anything that would point to this possibly being the case?


Maybe it's part of the Epstein files, he was famously wearing US Coast Guard shirts ;)

If it also contains a sensor network to detect adversary ships and submarines, it would be bad if someone else can use it to track US submarines. Or the sensors are too old and their resolution can't detect modern mini submarines or autonomous drone ships such as the ones the Ukraine is using in the black sea, so they need to be upgraded.

These people are PR professionals and have been doing propaganda since generations. If Trump speaks about Greenland he does not mean the country but he uses it to bury another Greenland entity that he does not want to be associated with. Same with Canada the country vs. Cañada the Spanish word. Bonus is if they can ragebait their political opponents because then nobody will ever again be able to find the original story with these keywords.

And to me this kind of story and easy anti-climate-change narrative checks all the boxes.


For it to fix the bug it has to identify the bug. If the bug is a security vulnerability then it will have to identify the security vulnerability to fix it. What's the alternative, have it ignore vulnerabilities/bugs? It wouldn't be a very good coding companion in that case.

I'd pay less attention to the prompt and more attention to the output when interpreting this story. (I'm not saying I agree with the decision, but this is how they are looking at it.)


Unless by next door you mean a different continent I think they'd still be in Europe. Although there are edge cases, such as if the fab is turkey but the office managing it is in a neighboring central Asian country.


I think they said increasing false positives because it would make it easier to generate at a mass scale. IDK the merits of the argument or what exactly they're saying would be done, but imagine pre-AI it might take someone quite a bit of manual effort to manufacture a plausible document regarding nuclear developments, but with AI it doesn't require so much work and is easier.


Can't solve a problem that doesn't exist yet


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: