Sum: For visibility/awareness, not restriction. $300 in a day it emails just you, >$500 in a day it emails you and your manager.
That seems pretty reasonable. Like, "let's make sure we aren't throwing away money on dumb stuff." If it were my org, as long as you can show something with it, you'd be fine. If you're spending that much per day creating throwaway vibe-coded PoCs for fun, or images of a pelican on a bicycle, it might be time to re-orient productivity. Seems pretty sensible/sane to me.
I agree, though that seems like a different problem. CF may have set a KPI around it, in which case I would agree that is stupid. But just wanting to know that the $ aren't going to waste seems responsible to me.
I don't think anyone would think twice about this particular policy in isolation if the same people now worrying about the cost of LLMs didn't spend the last 6 months pushing their developers to use LLMs as much as possible (and in some cases, firing their coworkers claiming they weren't needed anymore because of LLMs).
Sadly many coworkers aren't really needed in the AI age.
I am aware of it happening in CMS projects, content translations are now mostly done by AI, and only require a smaller team to cross-check. Likewise image assets, no longer need to be outsourced to design agencies, stored into the image assets database, instead most of them are now generated.
Except you’re not going to install native apps for the vast majority of things you use a browser for. You’re going to use the browser for content consumption and native apps for a few things that need system access.
> What I'd like from the tech industry (and maybe also from the US government) would be an answer to "where do you see humanity in 5 years?" - because right now, I see lots of hype and panic, but little explanation what kind of vision should be realized with AI. Well, except overtly dystopian visions that could come right out of Marx' writings or a William Gibson novel. But even those aren't really self-consistent.
The tech industry is made up of a lot of different people with different opinions/perspectives, so differing views is exactly what I would expect. And to be fair the views are pretty widely available for anyone curious. Tech industry leaders haven't exactly been quiet about what they think AI will do to/for humanity.
> The report complains that when asked about the age of the universe, AIs just give the scientific consensus answer of 13bn years, never mentioning that young earth creationists believe it’s 600 [SIC] years old.
Where do you stop once you go down this rabbit hole? Which faith(s) get their views injected in? Christian? Muslim? Hindu? Pagan Gods? Should I get the perspective of the follower's of Thor when I ask a question?
Note that you can always ask for the religious perspective you're interested in. IME with the religion(s) I grew up in or know a great deal about, the LLMs are pretty good at answering accurately and respectfully. Nearly all the products already offer you tools to personalize the output for you too if you want to inject your faith into the answers, so it's not like the LLMs won't give you a religious perspective if you want it.
> young earth creationists believe it’s 600 years old
Ahem, 6000 years, approximately.
> around 6 pm on 22 October 4004 BC, per the proleptic Julian calendar.
While the Gregorian calendar was in use for about 70 years by the time of his "calculation" of the age of the Earth, the Gregorian calendar was a Catholic invention and Ussher was very Protestant.
Physical evident strongly supports the 13-ish billion year age. Radioactive decay shows that a young earth could not exist, as there would be lots of short-lived primordial radioactive isotopes. Instead, the only primordial radioactives are those with very long half-lives. If there were a different rate of radioactive decay (as some YECs try to suggest), the Earth would still be a molten ball of lava/magma with no solid surface. And definately no liquid water anywhere.
>Physical evident strongly supports the 13-ish billion year age. Radioactive decay shows that a young earth could not exist, as there would be lots of short-lived primordial radioactive isotopes.
Well, if one ascribes to this God thing, of course Earth could just as well be created 6000 years ago, with exactly the shape and vintage material properties to appear to us as it does now.
If you can create a baby Earth from nothing, you can also just create a middle-aged Earth from nothing.
I don't believe that a benevolent God would create bones in the ground to trick millions of scientists into falsely believing in the existence of dinosaurs.
Like seriously, every creationist who goes with this argument really compromises on the benevolence leg of our understanding of God. Like God is some kind of trickster being who leads atheists astray on purpose or something.
You might enjoy reading the concept of the demiurge [1]: A lesser creating-but-not-creator deity than the ultimate benevolent god, usually portrayed as something of a deceptive character. Great rabbit hole to go down.
I know it's pretty dubious if anything could be considered a true infohazard, but Gnosticism is up there in the running. I was warned, and it is indeed a hard mindset to shake regardless of low priors.
And i might be a Boltzmann Brain hallucinating all of this after a paticle cloud over hundreds of billions of years of random interactions by chance happened to condenced into thinking substance out of the chaos.
Yes, the article had a typo in it (I quoted the article verbatim other than the [SIC] that I added). The correct belief of young-earth creationists is 6,000 years, not 600. For the record I don't think that impacts my point at all.
For the curious, that number is largely arrived at by working backward through time using the reported ages of the Old Testament prophets going back to Adam in the book of Genesis.
> Radioactive decay shows that a young earth could not exist
This is one of the worst arguments against young earth creationism. You have to posit a being who can create the universe, but can't create already decayed elements.
And then you have arrived at "Last Thursdayism", where the universe could have been created a few days ago, or literally now, or might not exist at all and you are the only soul in existence hallucinating everything, because all evidence on any of these points could have been arranged by the omnipotent creator.
And thus, the creator having being able to create anything at any point, yet our world having no proof of that happening, leads you to the only logical answer: either a book of abrahamic folk tales is the fundamental law of the universe, or it’s just a book.
> because all evidence on any of these points could have been arranged by the omnipotent creator
An omnipotent creator that creates lies? What else should we disbelieve from that Prince of Lies? How can we tell that now that invisible sky daddy is telling the truth this time? What about last time? Are we going to see some giant PSYCH! written in the sky?
Or Next Tuesdayism: the universe will be created next Tuesday. Your current sense of experiencing reality is merely the fabricated memory which will have existed after the universe gets created.
The idea behind YEC is that God created a world which is visibly, quantifiably, and measurably 6000 years old. According to this, scientists, in their hubris, failed to see what was right in front of them, and were led astray. It’s imperative that the earth NOT appear to be older than 6000 years, because if God put forth evidence that it was that old, then he did so for a reason, and we should treat it as being that old.
This line of thinking necessarily throws out any formal systems of reasoning humans have adopted. E.g. belief in a divine creator gives little reason to believe that Newton's First Law is eternally consistent if an omnipotent being could change the "rules of the physics" at any point.
It's not even a proper argument if you think about it, because you are essentially positing logic/reasoning aren't sufficient to comprehend the reality we live in.
Creationism does not want to say "magic" and admit that God is intentionally trying to deceive people. So that's why some of these responses seem silly. I mean they are, but only because the pro-creationism arguments are silly.
Yet, carbon 14 dating is one of the “gotcha” reasons that they’ll try to argue an old earth is impossible. It’s not a good faith argument from them generally though.
So our Earth was created with supposedly fake proofs that it’s much older than it really is, with no physical proof whatsoever that it is this young. A young age I might add that basically means half of civilization’s history never happened, and more than two thirds of our species’ existence.
Why? The book itself gives no reasoning or exact age for when Earth started, yet we have to believe it is fact that someone misreading that book has the exact pure date?
> Why? The book itself gives no reasoning or exact age for when Earth started, yet we have to believe it is fact that someone misreading that book has the exact pure date?
Young earth creationism is predicated on the idea that every word in the Bible is literal fact (no exceptions), so you can “calculate” the age of the earth by the genealogy accounts of ancestry from Adam to Jesus. It falls apart at any reasonable scrutiny, but like you said, it’s not rational thinking. It’s dogma for a certain group of people.
Which then raises the idea that young earth creationism posits a God who would create a world that intentionally misleads people about its age.
And yet if you ask many a young earth creationist about the dome in the heavens separating the waters above from the waters below, they will have no idea what you’re talking about¹ because they insist on literal interpretations of a text that they didn’t make it through the first page of.
This is, of course, going to vary. There is a wide spectrum of Christian fundamentalists and related conspiracy theorists who believe in Young-Earth Creationism. Some of them are not only perfectly happy to state that God put partially-decayed elements and dinosaur bones there to test their faith; they will declare with enthusiasm that the fact that you believed in them means you failed, and are going to hell!
Others will come up with reasons why those things aren't actually what they appear to be, including but not limited to the ones who declare the entire scientific establishment to be a grand conspiracy to discredit the One True Faith.
Still others will just breeze on past it, ignoring things that they cannot understand.
Not a YEC, but you, the sentient being made in God's image, don't join a MineCraft world that is still a molten ball of lava/magma with no solid surface.
The analogy that jumps to mind immediately is "you get the wikipedia page by default, but have the option to explore the page's metadata (including conversations)." This feels reasonable, and how most people use wikipedia - which isn't surprising since you're often getting an LLM's output from the training on the exact same information. The complaints in the report seem to miss the point IMO, jumping to some form of artificial intelligence and applying it to what is text prediction that unsurprisingly reflects the body of human knowledge on which it is trained.
I mean christianity is a major religion and the Bible considered a major source, but that's just one of many. Does AI even consider that in 1884, meridian time personnel met in Washington to change Earth time? First words said was that only 1 day could be used on Earth to not change the 1 day bible. So they applied the 1 day and ignored the other 3 days. The bible time was wrong then and it proved wrong today. This a major lie has so much evil feed from it's wrong. In other words, 4 Earth Quadrants simultaneously rotate inside 4 Time Cube Quarters to create 4 - 24 hour days within one Earth rotation.
In American English, “race and religion” is an old-timey expression that’s typically used as a broad identifier in a melting-pot context, eg. “We are a nation of many nationalities, many races, many religions…” ~FDR
Religion relies on assumptions that cannot be proven physically, secularism just avoids those assumptions (I say this as a Christian who finds secular biblical scholarship fascinating and helpful).
Secular humanism has been accepted as a religion for First amendment purposes.
Non theistic Buddhism is still considered a religion.
Worldview might be a better term for us to use in understanding people's first amendment rights. And also the idea that there is no neutral worldview. E.g. "secularism" is directly hostile to many religious viewpoints, and to the degree that its proponents use it to oppose religion, secularism becomes a religion/worldview/belief system.
This has happened to a lot of stuff in the last couple months I've noticed. For me it's been mostly on bad news for Apple. I suspect it's something changed in the algorithm or people flagging rather than nefarious, but that's just my guess
If it's the algorithm, I'd be curious what other parameter it could be.
If it's people flagging, is there a good reason to do that? Otherwise, I would still call it nefarious behavior by people abusing the flagging mechanism in order to bury this story.
As much as I love a good backronym, especially one with nested acronyms in it, it could use something self-referentially recursive, preferably with tail-recursion. This is not the solution, but something like FROSTY (Fingerprinting Remotely using OPFS-based SSD Timing with frostY)
$50 per month for unlimited, not $50 per friend, so your solution only works if you only have 1 friend, so it would work for me (self-deprecating joke) but may not for GP.
It's not just better at cybersecurity, it's better at all the things (or most of them). I for one would really benefit from a better claude code. I still have to babysit it pretty closely to keep it from messing things up. Opus 4.7 was not an upgrade for me.
But in general, what does the average Joe need Opus for that Sonnet or Haiku can't do for them? Better is better.
The AES encrypted file has some, plus a bunch of exported env vars. I do keep one function in my ~/.bashrc to make it simpler to invoke so I can do `source-secret ~/.secrets.aes`:
source-secret()
{
if [ -z "$1" ]; then
echo "Need filename to source"
elif ! [ -f "$1" ]; then
echo "File '$1' does not exist"
elif ! which aescrypt >/dev/null 2>&1; then
echo "Could not find required dependency 'aescrypt'"
else
. <(aescrypt -d -o - "$1")
fi
}
That seems pretty reasonable. Like, "let's make sure we aren't throwing away money on dumb stuff." If it were my org, as long as you can show something with it, you'd be fine. If you're spending that much per day creating throwaway vibe-coded PoCs for fun, or images of a pelican on a bicycle, it might be time to re-orient productivity. Seems pretty sensible/sane to me.
reply