So your argument to the valid narrative of gross unfairness and people being above the law is to look the other way because you are afraid of being called a "socialist"? Holding criminals accountable for bad and reckless behavior is not socialism by any definition of the word.

It's not my solution, I'm not in charge of the SEC! I'm broadly supportive of anti-inequality measures against the financial industry. It's just that if you say that the peanut gallery will call it socialist.

I would however like people to be a bit more specific about what they think the crime was, who specifically committed what, and whether it was actually illegal at the time. It's a word people love to throw around. It's not actually illegal to make poor business decisions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Se%C3%A1n_Quinn for example, while his misconduct cost the collapse of AIB, the thing he was actually jailed for was failing to comply with court orders.

Anger also comes from many retirees whose retirement savings tanked. Everyday people lost a lot of money, many their homes, and no one bailed them out. It appears to many that those responsible were above the law. It's the same reason people are furious about the Epstein Files, where the only person in jail for what happened is a woman. We see our neighbors dragged out of their houses or cars without a warrant because they don't look "white" and may have committed the misdemeanor of not having proper documentation. And yet, not a single CEO was held accountable for far worse crimes committed -- in fact, they kept their bonuses! These people recklessly inflicted a huge amount of pain on the public, through lost investments, millions of people losing their homes, most young people not being able to buy homes, and creating an even greater divide between the 1% and the rest of us. It is truly weird to read comments that seem to defend them.

The key hurdle for AI to leap is establishing trust with users. No one trusts the big players (for good reason) and it is causing serious anxiety among the investors. It seems Claude acknowledges this and is looking to make trust a critical part of their marketing messaging by saying no ads or product placement. The problem is that serving ads is only one facet of trust. There are trust issues around privacy, intellectual property, transparency, training data, security, accuracy, and simply "being evil" that Claude's marketing doesn't acknowledge or address. Trust, on the scale they need, is going to be very hard for any of them to establish, if not impossible.

Impossible. The only way to know what is happening is to have the code run on your own infra.

That still doesn't mean much unless you're doing your own training or getting the weights from a trusted source, and neither of those mean much without knowing something about the data being trained on.

If someone is trying to influence your results, running the inference on your own infrastructure prevents some attack vectors but not some of the more plausible and worrying ones.

I don't think people are concerned about the models' math being biased/tainted (people know of it but that largely doesn't factor into the "security concerns" that people cite.) Typically, it's about how do we know that our data is not going to be seen by a 3rd party. That's what I'm speaking to. Running on your own infra, you can guarantee there are no phone-homes.

What do you mean? Google is roughly the most trusted organization in the world by revealed preference. The 800(?) million ChatGPT users – I have a hard time reading that as a trust problem.

Usage metrics don't reveal preference in all cases. The fact these companies are sketchy/untrustworthy is practically a meme, including among non-tech people. Their services are widely relied upon, but they enjoy very little subjective good will

Except that government, at least in the U.S., is not doing their job. This administration doesn't want to regulate AI.

Whether or not it is the government's job is to be regulating a specific thing is not as straightforward of an issue as it may seem.

This is an advertisement disguised as a "report".

Nonetheless this investigation is important to anyone with a stronger desire to preserve intellectual honesty than disdain for a company trying to expand their offering.

a good advertisement

it's painful that HN has become that

"Instead of believing everyone is out to get you, you believe everyone is out to help you."

Worst advice I have ever heard.

These AI tools are hyped as "look how easy and fast it is to build an app with no coding experience." But then I see posts like yours saying that the tools are so _hard_ to use that developers with advanced skills struggle to get it to do what they can already do faster and better and with more satisfaction on their own.

Both "it's so easy" and "it's hard, but believe me, worth it someday" are completely unconvincing arguments to me. I'd rather just do my job well than spend all my time chasing someone's overhyped fantasy down a rabbit hole.

You are conflating two different things.

There are "vibe coding" tools like Lovable that let you build a prototype-level app with no coding experience. They're easy and fun, but I probably wouldn't want a novice (or anyone, really) using them within an enterprise codebase.

Then there are tools like Claude Code which, when used by a skilled practitioner, can be used to accelerate real SWE work in enterprise production codebases.

You are of course free to bury your head in the sand and ignore both categories of tools under the same "overhyped fantasy" umbrella, but I think you're doing so at your own professional peril. Just my opinion though.

I have been doing Object Oriented Programming for 25 years, but am now learning a new framework that uses a functional language. So, while I have lots of experience with code, I'm very new to this paradigm.

I thought that AI could help me learn it and have tried a variety of approaches. I have found that it is just absolute crap. It is worse than hype, it lies about what you are able to do. I spent a day with ChatGPT trying to figure out how to resize a browser window in a feature test until it finally told me after hours of confident explanation, that it is impossible to do at the moment. Um, that would have been great information to have 8 hours ago!

Not only does it lie to you, but AI slop is literally destroying the Internet. Please do not try to learn software development from AI. There are plenty of great ways to learn. Maybe your experience is or will be different, but I value my time and AI does nothing but waste mine.

That's because hacker news is often an echo chamber of venture capitalists (or VC wannabes) whose success depends on perpetuating these myths.

its a couple things

its what you said its also the way america handles stem education, often times you skip a bunch of humanities classes. So its really easy to get into this mindset of "I made it, I work in tech and make 300k because Im smart, smarter than everyone around me" and from there people just reach the assumption that if you dont make hundreds of dollars a year its because youre dumb, or lazy, and its your problem and theres nothing wrong with the way we designed society.

sometimes this site is like if the worst parts of linkedin and reddit had a baby

"sometimes this site is like if the worst parts of linkedin and reddit had a baby"

I think that's a quality observation.

One of the helpful observations of humans I've gained from this site is that people tend to assume that their position in society is some kind of natural given. And typically the folks here are either what some folks might term "labor aristocracy" or literal aristocracy.

Hence the reason why skipping humanities classes has been so harmful- they haven't spent the effort to appreciate the vast width of human experience.

So when they are confronted with ideas about how other folks live, their inclination to see themselves as naturally in a solid position makes it difficult to see why other people make the choices they make.

Fundamentally the folks on this site have a highly chauvinistic picture of their culture and really, at their core, are "anti-democratic" because they don't feel other folks can make rational choices about life.

It's only recently that this has become an "out loud" thing to say, but I have been hearing it quite a lot lately.

This trend has been something I've been paying attention to for a long time- I've had a quicklink to search for "musk" in titles of the site since about the time he bought twitter because I could see where this is going, and I feel unfortunately validated in that feeling.

But if you want to check the pulse on the nihilistic sociopaths who are now in charge of parts of the US Gov, this site is very helpful.

Also good for finding out about running doom on various devices, but that's just a side benefit.