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

The blast radius from a maritime collission is (mostly) relegated to the vehicles in question [1]. The same is not true for satellite collisions.

[1] There are counterexamples, like in narrow chokes & whatnot.


> same is not true for satellite collisions

Space is big. Volume grows with radius in a way our intutiions don't seem to intuitively understand. Yes, debris in a space collision go further. But they're still bound by their energies. And that larger volume of collision debris (plus all other stuff in orbit minus the Moon) is still a smaller fraction of the orbital space than e.g. commercial air space on earth, and yes, that's including oceans.


Space is huge, but being on land has some advantages too. It's true that volume grows, but satellites don't have brakes in the way that cars do, nor is there a cleanup crew that removes the debris after a crash.

You can remove curbs and any other barrier to simulate the fact that cars can maneuver away from a crash site, but if no site is ever cleaned, and no car has meaningful brakes, crash sites are much scarier.


Get saavy...? More like "will require trust that manufacturers are honest" -- which I won't believe for a miliesecond.

Yeah, I don't know what I was thinking when I wrote that. No one reads the ToS anyway. Just stop buying TVs, now that Sceptre stopped delivering the last models of consumer dumb TVs.

Humans still have brains (and thus human intellect) even in the presence of AI... Even today, people make varying use of their brains.

But what use will be their brains to others if a machine can do the thinking instead for a fraction of cost?

Whatever they feel like putting them to, instead of whatever they are forced to put them to to earn their living?

"Manufacture as many paperclips as possible"


Y'all are missing the point: It's probably less than 100 hours to learn the foundations of one of humanity's most-current breakthroughs. It's a disservice to any young hacker to not learn it. Here's your curriculum. Watch these:

-- 3Blue 1Brown's Neural Network Series: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZHQObOWTQDNU6R1_6700...

-- Karpathy on LLMs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xTGNNLPyMI

-- Stanford CS336: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuoVZkPBiKk

Then do this hands-on:

-- Karpathy's zero-to-hero: https://karpathy.ai/zero-to-hero.html


Maybe. As the nature of assistive tools changes, so does pedagogy. Calculators are the easy example since most of us are (still) familiar. But there are others that were just as pronounced -- e.g. log tables and slide rules were transformational and instrumental at one time, and you've (probably) never used them. If you had used slide rules to solve your homework problems then were excluded from using them on exams, you'd see a similar effect.

AI is a big change; pedagogy is going to change too.


> As the nature of assistive tools changes

I mean, does it? The way I see it, the best LLMs have to offer is infinite patience (until they inevitably and unpredictably start to confabulate, which should be a gigantic red flag, anyhow), I don't see how LLMs can be used to explore teaching paradigms that haven't been explored before. We know pretty well from centuries of empirical experimentation how children's brains develop under different stimuli. It's not exactly something the software industry needed to "hack".


"Does it?" - Yes? Did you learn arithmetic with log & exponent tables, or just calculators?


That's not answering my question, what precisely do LLM enable in ways of educating children that hasn't been thoroughly studied before? What role do you want to give chatbots in the complex framework of child brain development? How do you back it up?


> So why are ai companies shredding books

Because a cartoon mouse's parent company used regulatory capture to extend copyright for decades.


> And lets not even talk, the lack of compliance in an enterprise environment, and as they defer to providers on that...

A middleman that adds compliance & regulation while skimming a slice off the top for themselves: You just described credit cards - stripe's core business...


How is the middleman going to add compliance if its not the provider of the LLMs? And if that was possible OpenRouter would have done it already...


Very much the same line of business as Amazon Bedrock except OpenRouter gives more options (choice of where hosted, data retention options and so on).


>> choice of where hosted,

You dont understand Bedrock fundamental use case.


Yeah I do. You can get data locality in GovCloud, a U.S. data centre, or even EU regions.

It’s governed by your master AWS agreement (which will make your compliance officer happy), and billing is also conveniently handled by AWS.

Of course the Chinese models on it are rotten old and not cheap. But if you want to configure an app to use inference that is entirely controlled, it’s the next best thing to running local.


Most important...

- Your inputs are within the security boundary of your AWS account or AWS accounts

  Can OpenRouter say the same? - NO
- Your inputs are not shared with models creators

   Can OpenRouter say the same? - NO
- Your inputs are not used to train the next model

   Can OpenRouter say the same? - NO
- Within certain limits and certain models:

   "50.10.1. Subject to the limitations in this Section 50.10, AWS will defend you and your employees, officers, and directors against any third-party claim alleging that the Generative AI Output generated by an Indemnified Generative AI Service infringes or misappropriates that third party’s intellectual property rights, and will pay the amount of any adverse final judgment or settlement."

  Can OpenRouter say the same? - NO


> Within certain limits and certain models

For those that hadn't read yet (on https://aws.amazon.com/service-terms/):

"Certain models" means "only AWS's own trained models" (Nova etc), so not e.g. Bedrock Claude or GPT.

"Certain limits" means they don't defent if the input to the model is the IP.


Yet another reason to support open-weight alternatives, I guess.


Why do you feel the need to deceive readers on whether your content is AI generated?


Why do you feel the need to label the content when the quality of the content will speak for itself?

It doesn't matter where the content comes from, only the quality/usefulness matters. If you are opposed to this idea, the next decades are going to be very tough for you :)


If the "author" can't be fucked writing their own work I don't want to be fucked reading even the couple paragraphs it takes to be offput by clanker slop.

> It doesn't matter where the content comes from

It absolutely matters to a lot of people. Things like these just provide transparency and allow people to have the necessary information to make their own decisions.


Not sure I understand your implication... because I'm the primary consumer of the content AI generates for me. I'd rather not have its output adulterated.


These are magic black boxes whose content gets constantly adulterated with no input from you.

Models from openAI had instructions in their system prompt not to talk about gremlins and goblins. Anthropic got caught acting different if you're Chinese. Grok got its Nazi dialed turned to 11 until it started calling itself Mechahitler cause Musk found it too left leaning on Twitter.


Why is it deception if you never claimed it was unassisted? The assumption now is that most text produced is already assisted by an AI to some extent.


If you have no problem with your AI content being labeled as AI content then a watermark that does exactly that is totally fine with you, no?


yes, which is why Apple got massively fined for doing it -- nowhere near enough to compensate all the depressed engineering salaries though.


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

Search: