dgellow

9 ms·

1. 211.▲
   by dgellow 1mo ago

   My pockets don’t care much about ISO paper standards (not sure why you call it metric? That doesn’t have much to do with the metric system as far as I’m aware?)
2. 212.▲
   by dgellow 1mo ago

   We (the HN audience) have disposable income for that type of thing, I don’t see the issue with being a casual user of an expensive device
3. 213.▲
   by dgellow 1mo ago

   Yeah, Microsoft and missing hardware opportunities goes perfectly together
4. 214.▲
   by dgellow 1mo ago

   Microsoft did a really interesting job with the surface duo but it was a complete flop
5. 215.▲
   by dgellow 1mo ago

   We are talking about how wide the phone is when folded. The company doesn’t know yet what exactly the market wants here, given it’s a new form factor for the apple audience
6. 216.▲
   by dgellow 1mo ago

   By that metric they shouldn’t release a folding phone at all, it’s a very niche market
7. 217.▲
   by dgellow 1mo ago

   iPhone SE?
8. 218.▲
   by dgellow 1mo ago

   iPhone 5s was peak form factor IMHO. I thought I would be tempted by the folding iPhone but it looks way too wide for me to use comfortably
9. 219.▲
   by dgellow 1mo ago

   I use my iPhone SE with one hand all the time, and have small-ish hands. Being able to use a phone with one hand is a fairly basic accessibility feature, not a niche ask
10. 220.▲
    by dgellow 1mo ago

    And why does it need to be wider when folded for that? The competition showed that a narrow folding phone works quite well if you want to have access to a bigger screen without a different device
11. 221.▲
    by dgellow 1mo ago

    Pretty sure I had something like that on galaxy buds 6+ years ago
12. 222.▲
    by dgellow 1mo ago

    The main difference is that the UN didn’t force anything and isn’t unilaterally deciding what projection to use. The countries decided together to use a new default when showing the world map, that’s it. You can still use whatever projectio
13. 223.▲
    by dgellow 1mo ago

    Please no fed posting on HN https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fedpost
14. 224.▲
    by dgellow 1mo ago

    Any hosted AI, doesn’t matter if it’s open or closed. The powers that be will also happily use open models for surveillance purposes
15. 225.▲
    by dgellow 1mo ago

    I’m aware, but we can still discuss them seriously
16. 226.▲
    by dgellow 1mo ago

    Or any of the middlemen
17. 227.▲
    by dgellow 1mo ago

    Healthcare is indeed the poster child for inelastic demand
18. 228.▲
    by dgellow 1mo ago

    Yep, I read it, that’s what this seems to be about
19. 229.▲
    by dgellow 1mo ago

    LLMs worsen all those existing problems, that’s the whole point being made here
20. 230.▲
    by dgellow 1mo ago

    I assumed it was a given in such discussions that companies will optimizing for the worst outcomes for their users. It’s a fairly straightforward incentive from our capitalist system, which is why capitalism needs regulation to re-align t
21. 231.▲
    by dgellow 1mo ago

    It’s perfectly reasonable to consider positive and negative outcome when you’re seriously thinking about a topic… Extrapolating to the whole economy trends in some sub sectors that aren’t well understood or measured is a recipe for disaster
22. 232.▲
    by dgellow 1mo ago

    The “less valuable than expected but with a positive economical impact” is represented in the post I believe, with the “moderate” path, that’s what I meant by “wrong in magnitude”. What is missing is the other side, what if AI has a negativ
23. 233.▲
    by dgellow 1mo ago

    > Like any economic model, this one has limits. For example, we did not include scenarios where humanity develops hyper-capable robots. I didn’t see the scenario “what if we (Anthropic) are wrong about the value of AI”. Which IMHO is the
24. 234.▲
    by dgellow 1mo ago

    If you want to be pedantic it’s one of the 7 problems a specific institute considers to be the most important in mathematics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Prize_Problems (Not that I think the comparison to
25. 235.▲
    by dgellow 1mo ago

    How many Ramanujan didn’t get the same opportunity to show their work to what was considered the intelligentsia of that time?
26. 236.▲
    by dgellow 1mo ago

    We don’t need to guess, OpenAI pretty much indirectly they had the chats in their data set. OpenAI responses are the most suspicious part of that whole controversy, the fact they do not provide straight answers is not a sign of a good faith
27. 237.▲
    by dgellow 1mo ago

    > A year from now, who knows what the situation is going to be like. That cuts both ways, we are building datacenters for an immature technology that is quickly evolving. We have no idea what AI will look like in the next 5-10y. Everythi
28. 238.▲
    by dgellow 1mo ago

    You don’t understand what a bubble is. How good the technology is is irrelevant. That has nothing to do with an economical bubble. It’s all about massive capital misallocation driven by a frenzy of FOMO, which is specifically the case for A
29. 239.▲
    by dgellow 1mo ago

    It’s a discussion forum so you will of course see different perspectives. There isn’t an HN mind, and it’s not as simple as you make it seem. We don’t need a god to damage humanity significantly, an artificial moron can be as dangerous as a
30. 240.▲
    by dgellow 1mo ago

    An artificial moron with super human hacking abilities (mostly because of speed and ease of parallelizing the work) is extremely dangerous in itself. It doesn’t mean to be AGI or anything remotely close to be a risk, and they current AI com