pj_mukh

6 ms·

61.
by pj_mukh 2mo ago
>> what you're saying is "I like the knives because I can cut things" it just happens the "things" in this case are (mostly) your vegetables. Again, I'm not saying this out of some bad faith, I just think
62.
by pj_mukh 2mo ago
Yes, That’s an opt-in feature. You can record all the footage you want and keep it on your phone, and they won’t see any of it, unless you ask for it be analyzed by their AI (as laid out in the article you shared). Of course if there was ev
63.
by pj_mukh 2mo ago
How would it be monetized? And if it has been, where can I buy this? And if you can't doesn't that make you question your assumptions?
64.
by pj_mukh 2mo ago
That's..exactly how the Meta glasses work :/, and there has been no evidence otherwise so far. Would love to see it if I missed this.
65.
by pj_mukh 2mo ago
"put their faces in a recognition database" Just so we're clear and can read past the headlines. This database doesn't exist and there has been no evidence that a database built off of meta ray-bans exists. And I would o
66.
by pj_mukh 2mo ago
>>like the creation of virtual CSAM with them You think Meta is going to create CSAM with my data? Like I would dump them for using my data for analytics without my permission, but we probably should recalibrate our expectations a bit
67.
by pj_mukh 2mo ago
If you gave me a non-Meta glass like this, I'd happily switch, and FWIW, if I saw some evidence of Meta doing something untoward with this data, I'd dump them immediately. An unaction'd patent and breathless headlines over &q
68.
by pj_mukh 2mo ago
Which is true for all parents recording all kids with every kind of camera, also in a way that is totally un-actionable. Good faith question: If your worry is, "I don't know you're recording", what did you do with that i
69.
by pj_mukh 2mo ago
>> "The glass only seems to appeal to a certain type of people anyway." What type of people is that? I am just a dad who has them and films his kids doing cute things without making the phone camera an ever present intrusi
70.
by pj_mukh 2mo ago
That's my point. Cancer researchers are currently filling out Trial and Grant applications instead of working on what they do best. P.S: I am not saying applications will go away but LLM's are clearly massively effective here at t
71.
by pj_mukh 2mo ago
> The thing that will work is actually curing cancer. I think typical bubble behavior the leaders have set up the whole promise to fail. Everyone is expecting some faux super intelligence to come and find a cancer solution everyone else
72.
by pj_mukh 2mo ago
>> "No one said the amount of radiology work would decrease" Literally the Godfather of AI did [1]. The rest is pablum, Radiologists do far more than just protect against liability. I hope you never find out why they are so
73.
by pj_mukh 2mo ago
>>fully replaceable by AI I am trying to fathom a more catastrophic failure in communications than the lab CEO's using this narrative. The reality ends up being closer to Radiology jobs [1], but we're never able to fully rea
74.
by pj_mukh 2mo ago
The title implies that there are collision check systems that don’t use point clouds (or that robotics has moved onto something else)? Is that true or did the author just mean personally?
75.
by pj_mukh 2mo ago
The last thing I'd wanna replicate is any kind of blanket statement like that.
76.
by pj_mukh 2mo ago
I dont know why we're not looking at the obvious answer here. Encrypt the data behind warrants and require narrow parameters for the warrants. It will require state-by-state implementation + legal changes sure but it's the safest,
77.
by pj_mukh 2mo ago
All of this has been true for the last 50 years at least? What changed?
78.
by pj_mukh 2mo ago
>>Unless the capability to create high productivity enabling AI is in the hands of every person, The capability is definitely there, the agency or education probably isn't. Those are both personal and infrastructure choices. None
79.
by pj_mukh 2mo ago
r/overemployed disagrees. there is real wealth in productivity gains. Could capital owners try to capture it all? I'm sure. But it's not a natural result of the technology, it's just whether we choose to allow it or not.
80.
by pj_mukh 2mo ago
Good faith counter point >>” to scale your wealth with other people's labor” Or you can scale your labor with openly available AI?
81.
by pj_mukh 2mo ago
I’m sorry this wasn’t obvious in my comment but I meant AI engineers not software engineers (and not the AI capital owners either) Either way, I empathize with your anxiety but posit that its primarily driven by techs original sin: the algo
82.
by pj_mukh 2mo ago
>> If it's boring technology, why be excited about it? Surely, on Hackernews, we know we can get excited about technology that maybe boring to most of the public. And in this case, I think the technology has wide-ranging producti
83.
by pj_mukh 2mo ago
"AI cannot do your job Your boss bought AI to do your job You're fired" This is true only in the headlines and the loud CEO pronouncements that we for some reason take at face value. In the numbers it's almost more borin
84.
by pj_mukh 2mo ago
>>"optimistic and enthusiastic about the new messiah" I mean that's you agreeing with Elon Musk, I disagree, I think AI is just normal technology [1], there's a lot of us. Like tech revolutions before, it'll h
85.
by pj_mukh 2mo ago
Also the headline is about tech workers but the article is about Knowledge workers. I know a class of tech workers absolutely fired up about the new Industrial Revolution, they're just not on this forum or featured in lengthy navel-gaz
86.
by pj_mukh 3mo ago
> if I hired a professional artist to draw a picture of a pelican riding a bicycle, I think AI folks have done a terrible job of communicating this, but replacing a professional simply isn't the point. The point is to serve all the
87.
by pj_mukh 3mo ago
what's fable at, does anyone know?
88.
by pj_mukh 3mo ago
>If we all woke up tomorrow and thought 'we need 10 million new homes The cost (no profit) of 1 Million homes where people want to live (where your community is), would be roughly 0.5 Trillion to 1 Trillion USD [1]. So, I don't
89.
by pj_mukh 3mo ago
Yes to all of this, and want to double stress the Housing theory of everything [1]. Most of the "scarcity" people feel today in the North American context is driven by housing. And there simply isn't enough of it. And citing
90.
by pj_mukh 3mo ago
Just a note those "vacancies" include dilapidated buildings and housing that is between leases (literally all the housing on craigslist is included in that number). Vacancies in most major cities is near-zero. As a market-rate ren

More ›