> we could say that Iran is being starved as well, but we can't blame Israel for everything
Funny that you say that, because the reason Iran is under sanctions is that Israel wanted it. Obama had agreed to a lift on the sanctions in exchange for a strict control on Iran's nuclear program; Trump and his cohort of rabid zionists remote controlled from Tel Aviv reneged on the agreement and restored the sanctions.
Do you not understand cause and effect? You think Netanyahu said Iran is trying to build nukes, then the world sanctioned Iran, then they started trying to build nukes? Is that what you're saying?
Also, you think Iran is only sanctioned because of their nuclear weapons program?
Be aware that all this might be the usual propaganda campaign that precedes US's "regime change" wars to make them appear as justified and necessary to the general public. This has been done so many times now that it's incredible people keep falling for it.
Because the far worse Palestine massacre was perpetrated by an ally of the West, defended by western politicians and opinion makers, financed with western money and armed with western weapons. Then it makes sense to protest against your country's complicity.
Protesting in your country against an enemy country that has been subjected already to all kinds of sanctions and military attacks makes little sense.
Why, do you think that the US, where all the giant social network companies are based, isn't doing this on a massive scale, much larger than anything Russia or Iran (and probably China for now) could ever hope to do?
Because most propaganda I see online seems to have a clear direction, and because of some not-so-recent "scandals" where a bunch of American influencers/grifters were discovered to be paid by russia to incite civil war.
Because if it did, we'd know about it. If we can get researches from Russia to expose their country's nefarious dealings, at the threat of death, we could easily get French, or German, or Canadian, or British, or American, or Czech researchers or whistleblowers exposing American propaganda campaigns.
Hell, look at Twitter/X. It got acquired by a mental guy who was screaming about government propaganda and censorship (while doing Nazi salutes). Do you really think that if there was any government mandate to do anything like what the Russians are doing, he wouldn't have exposed it as "SEE, I TOLD YOU BIG GUBIMNT BAD!!" ?
The US was not inactive in Gaza. It was actively supporting, funding and and arming a genocide. Currently the Trump administration is actively engaged in a process to clean up the Gaza strip, rebuild it with the money of other countries, and finally hand it over to Israel for free (for who do you think those nice skyscrapers would be built, for the Palestinians? Lol).
Try and follow. The Palestinians weren't the ones who built their original infrastructure and it wasn't "hand[ed] ... over to Israel". Other than your antipathy towards Israel, what makes you think that whatever other countries pay to rebuild for the Palestinians will be handed over to Israel?
What's your point? Palestinians built the first Zionist settlements too. They were hired as workers before Labor-Zionism made ethnicity be a necessary condition for employment in the settlements, later in Israel.
Israel has already grabbed a huge amount of Gaza after the genocide and Trumps "peace". And in the west bank they have ramped up the annexation as well. Israel has been swallowing Palestine while driving away Palestinians for more than 75 years now.
An apartheid state is not going to give the second class ethnic group any concessions.
His point is to insert in the conversation some disparaging remarks to paint Palestinians as parasites, pretending the occupation, oppression and blockade don't exist. Beyond this there is no consequence at all between his remarks and the point at hand, which is that the "peace" is a ploy to take the heat off Israel, free it from any obligation to pay reparations for the destruction it caused, and eventually hand over to it the Gaza strip.
Do tell how the fraction of the billions that were given to Gazans that weren't used to build tunnels to attack Israel were "hand[ed] over to Israel for free".
Are you just shaking a Magic Eight Ball and replying with whatever non-responsive bullshit it comes up with? Open air prison, genocide, international law, occupation...
First of all, knowing well that the US has been looking for excuses to attack Iran for the past, I don't know, twenty years at least, I am extremely suspicious of information about the numbers of these massacres. I know perfectly well that a media campaign filled with horrific reports is going to precede an attack by the US to either reduce the country in ruins or to a puppet state. I am also quite suspicious that these protests might be somehow encouraged by the US precisely for the same purpose. I mean, if Russian propaganda can influence foreign countries, I can't put a limit to what USA's power in the IT and social media space can do.
Besides this, of course when atrocities are perpetrated by an ally with whom you entertain friendly diplomatic, commercial and military relationships, it makes a lot of sense to protest: you have some leverage. When they are committed by an enemy country with which you have already severed any relationship, protests are pointless.
I don't get why they sold it. If the Chinese government really had a say, simply refusing would have been a better option, as Trump would have never dared shutting off an app loved by hundreds of millions of voters.
PRC veto = no algo transfer = bytedance/tiktok US can't be "sold" / total divestiture. New "sale" basically US conceded to PRC JV model, i.e. US companies operating in PRC has local data warehousing requirements, company gets to keep algo and ip, country gets technical custody over data. That's basically extend of thumb on skills PRC had to apply, they're fine with sovereign cloud etc, they weren't with forced divestiture (trying to coerce entire PRC company to flip).
The definitive factor here is whether the Chinese company wants to put themselves deep in the American political water. To any company, living under a crosshair alone is difficult enough, it becomes even more so when the company is foreign-owned.
The sell was a strategically correct decision by ByteDance, they made money out of it and they secured some future income, at least for a short while. But no app or service lives forever anyways, so it's still a good trade.
Whether or not the sell could benefit actual American users was never mattered.
I wasn't talking about Bytedance's point of view, but that of the Chinese government. As a private company without state backing, I agree that selling might have been the best decision to maximise their profits. But could have been politically advantageous for China to veto the sale- even if the platform were politically neutral- because it was basically untouchable, as was already proven by years of delay. They might have used it as a bargaining chip, and then I'd be curious to know what they got back.
Famously Steve Jobs said that the (personal) computer is "like a bicycle for the mind". It's a great metaphor because- besides the idea of lightness and freedom it communicates- it also described the computer as multiplier of the human strength- the bicycle allows one to travel faster and with much less effort, it's true, but ultimately the source of its power is still entirely in the muscles of the cyclist- you don't get out of it anything that you didn't put yourself.
Bu the feeling I'm having with LLMs is that we've entered the age of fossil-fuel engines: something that moves on its own power and produces somewhat more than the user needs to put into it. Ok, in the current version it might not go very far and needs to be pushed now and then, but the total energy output is greater than what users need to put in. We could call it a horse, except that this is artificial: it's a tractor. And in the last months I've been feeling like someone who spent years pushing a plough in the fields, and has suddenly received a tractor. A primitive model, still imperfect, but already working.
To keep torturing the metaphor, LLMs might be more like those electric unicycles (Onewheel, Inmotion, etc) – quite speedy, can get you places, less exercise, and also sometimes suddenly choke and send you flying facefirst into gravel.
And some people see you whizzing by and think "oh cool", and others see you whizzing by and think "what a tool."
More like the Segway... really cool at first then not really then totally overpriced and failed to revolutionize the industry. And it killed the founder
Is there a modern segway? I mean, I find ebikes are probably a better option in general, but it seems like all the pieces to recreate the segway for a much lower price are there already.
Looks like the closest thing is the self balancing stuff that segway makes. Otherwise it's just the scooters.
Not sure how this fits in the analogy, but as a cyclist I would add some people get more exercise by having an electric bicycle. It makes exercise available to more people.
I like this analogy. I'll add that, while electric bicycles are great for your daily commute, they're not suited for the extremes of biking (at least not yet).
- You're not going to take an electric bike mountain biking
- You're not going to use an electric bike to do BMX
- You're not going to use an electric bike to go bikepacking across the country
My eMTBs are just as capable as my manual bikes (similar geometry, suspension, etc). In fact, they make smashing tech trails easier because there's more weight near the bottom bracket which adds a lot of stability.
The ride feel is totally different though. I tend to gap more sections on my manual bike whereas I end up plowing through stuff on the hefty eeb.
>- You're not going to take an electric bike mountain biking
this sounds like a direct quote from Femke Van Den Driessche, who actually took an electric bike mountain biking: big mistake. Did it not perform well? no, actually it performed really well, the problem was, it got her banned from bike racing. Some of the evidence was her passing everybody else on the uphills; the other evidence was a motorized bike in her pit area.
I think you're kind of missing the point discussing which vehicle compares better to LLMs. The point is not the vehicle: it's the birth of the engine. Before engines, humans didn't have the means to produce those amounts of power- at all. No matter how many people, horses or oxen they had at their disposal.
> You're not going to use an electric bike to do BMX
while there are companies that have made electric BMX bikes, i'd argue that if you're doing actual "BMX" on a motorized bike, it's just "MX" at that point :)
I feel like both moped and electric bike misses the mark of the initial analogy, so does tractor too. Because they're not able to get good results without someone putting in the work ("energy") at some higher part of the process. It's not "at the push of a button/twist of the wrist" like with electric bikes or mopeds, but being able to know where/how to push actually gets you reliable results. Like a bicycle.
and other sometimes you forgot to charge it, becoming even heavier thing to continue your journey with. or, there is a high grade slope where excess weight is more than the motor capacity
Most people I see on their electric bikes aren't even pedaling. They're electric motorcycles, and they're a plague to everyone using pedestrian trails. Some of them are going nearly highway speeds, it's ridiculous.
There are 3 classes of e-bikes in the US, with class 3 topping out at 28mph—anything above that is illegal or in some weird legal grey area. You are thinking of e-motos which are an entirely different beast.
e-motos are a real problem; please don’t lump legitimate e-bikes in with those. It’s simply incorrect.
Nope. You apparently are incapable of distinguishing the massive gulf between an e-bike that enables the elderly, differently-abled, commuters, and less fit people to enjoy cycling at reasonable speeds. And an e-moto which is an illegally souped up vehicle that can reach closer to highway speeds. The latter is indeed a danger and should not be used in bike lanes or multi use paths… or really at all.
E-biking is only gaining popularity, so I’d suggest you educate yourself and adjust your ignorant perspective rather than digging in :)
Not convinced with any of three analogies tbh they don’t quite capture what is going on like Steve jobs’ did.
And frankly all of this is really missing the point - instead of wasting time on analogies we should look at where this stuff works and then reason from there - a general way to make sense of it that is closer to reality.
I think there is a legitimate fear that is born from what happened with Chess.
Humans could handily beat computers at chess for a long time.
Then a massive supercomputer beat the reigning champion, but didn't win the tournament.
Then that computer came back and won the tournament a year later.
A few years later humans are collaborating in-game with these master chess engines to multiply their strength, becoming the dominant force in the human/computer chess world.
A few years after that though, the computers start beating the human/computer hybrid opponents.
And not long after that, humans started making the computer perform worse if they had a hand in the match.
The next few years have probably the highest probability since the cold war of being extreme inflection points in the timeline of human history.
I know chess is popular because I have a friend who's enthusiastic about it and plays online regularly.
But I'm out of the loop: in order to maintain popularity, are computers banned? And if so, how is this enforced, both at the serious and at the "troll cheating" level?
(I suppose for casual play, matchmaking takes care of this: if someone is playing at superhuman level due to cheating, you're never going to be matched with them, only with people who play at around your level. Right?)
> But I'm out of the loop: in order to maintain popularity, are computers banned?
Firsrly, yes, you will be banned for playing at an AI level consecutively on most platforms. Secondly, its not very relevant to the concept of gaming. Sure it can make it logistically hard to facilitate, but this has plagued gaming through cheats/hacks since antiquity, and AI can actually help here too. Its simply a cat and mouse game and gamers covet the competitive spirit too much to give in.
Note that "AI" was not and has not been necessary for strong computer chess engines. Though clearly, they have contributed to peak strength and some NN methods are used by the most popular engine, stockfish.
Oh, I'm conflating the modern era use of the term with the classic definition of AI to include classic chess engines done with tree-pruning, backtracking, and heuristics :)
> I know pre-AI cheats have ruined some online games, so I'm not sure it's an encouraging thought...
Will you be even more discouraged if I share that "table flipping" and "sleight of hand" have ruined many tabletop games? Are you pressed to find a competitive match in your game-of-choice currently? I can recommend online mahjong! Here is a game that emphasizes art in permutations just as chess does, but every act you make is an exercise in approximating probability so the deterministic wizards are less invasive! In any-case, I'm not so concerned for the well-being of competition.
> Are you saying AI can help detect AI cheats in games? In real time for some games? Maybe! That'd be useful.
I know a few years back valve was testing a NN backed anti-cheat watch system called VACnet, but I didn't follow whether it was useful. There is no reason to assume this won't be improved on!
I'm honestly not following your argument here. I'm also not convinced by comparisons between AI and things that aren't AI or even automated.
> Will you be even more discouraged if I share that "table flipping" and "sleight of hand" have ruined many tabletop games?
What does this have to do with AI or online games? You cannot do either of those in online games. You also cannot shove the other person aside, punch them in the face, etc. Let's focus strictly on automated cheating in online gaming, otherwise they conversation will shift to absurd tangents.
(As an aside, a quick perusal of r/boardgames or BGG will answer your question: yes, antisocial and cheating behavior HAVE ruined tabletop gaming for some people. But that's neither here nor there because that's not what we're discussing here.)
> Are you pressed to find a competitive match in your game-of-choice currently? I can recommend online mahjong!
What are you even trying to say here?
I'm not complaining, nor do I play games online (not because of AI; I just don't find online gaming appealing. The last multiplayer game I enjoyed was Left 4 Dead, with close friends, not cheating strangers). I just find the topic interesting, and I wonder how current AI trends can affect online games, that's all. I'm very skeptical of claims that they don't have a large impact, but I'm open to arguments to the contrary.
I think some of this boils down to whether one believes AI is just like past phenomena, or whether it's significantly different. It's probably too early to tell.
We are likely on different footing as I quite enjoy games of all form. Here is my attempt to formalize my argument:
Claim 1: Cheating is endemic to competition across all formats (physical or digital)
Claim 2: Despite this, games survive and thrive because people value the competitive spirit itself
Claim 3: The appreciation of play isn't destroyed by the existence of cheaters (even "cheaters" who simply surpass human reasoning)
The mahjong suggestion isn't a non-sequitur (while still an earnest suggestion), it was to exemplify my personal engagement with the spirit of competition and how it completely side-steps the issue you are wary is existential.
> I think some of this boils down to whether one believes AI is just like past phenomenons, or whether it's significantly different. It's probably too early to tell.
I suppose I am not clear on your concern. Online gaming is demonstrably still growing and I think the chess example is a touching story of humanism prevailing. "AI" has been mucking with online gaming for decades now, can you qualify why this is so different now?
I really appreciate your clarifications! I think I actually agree with you, and I lost track of my own argument in all of this.
I'm absolutely not contesting that online play is hugely popular.
I guess I'm trying to understand how widespread and serious the problem of cheaters using AI/computer cheats actually is [1]. Maybe the answer is "not worse than before"; I'm skeptical about this but I admit I have no data to back my skepticism.
[1] I know Counter Strike back in the day was sort of ruined because of cheaters. I know one person who worked on a major anticheat (well-known at the time, not sure today), which I think he tried to sell to Valve but they didn't go with his solution. Also amusingly, he was remote-friends with a Russian hacker who wrote many of the cheats, and they had a friendly rivalry. This is just an ancedote, I'm not sure that it has anything to do with the rest of my comment :D
> I guess I'm trying to understand how widespread and serious the problem of cheaters using AI/computer cheats actually is.
It is undoubtedly more widespread.
> I know Counter Strike back in the day was sort of ruined because of cheaters.
There is truth in this, but this only affected more casual ladder play. Since early CSGO (maybe before as well? I am not of source age) there has been FACEiT and other leagues which asserts strict kernel-level anti-cheat and other heuristics on the players. I do agree this cat and mouse game is on the side of the cat and the best competition is curated in tightly controlled (often gate-kept) spaces.
It is interesting that "better" cheating is often done through mimicking humans closer though, which does have an interesting silver lining. We still very much value a "smart" or "strategic" AI in match-based solitary genres, why not carry this over to FPS or the like. Little Timmy gets to train against an AI expressing "competitive player" without needing to break through the extreme barriers to actually play against someone of this caliber. Quite exciting when put this way.
If better cheats are being forced to actually play the game, I'm not sure the threat is very existential to gaming itself. This is much less abrasive than getting no-scoped in spawn at round start in a CS match.
The most serious tournaments are played in person, with measures in place to prevent (e.g.) a spectator with a chess engine on their phone communicating with a player. For online play, it's kind of like the situation for other online games; anti-cheat measures are very imperfect, but blatant cheaters tend to get caught and more subtle ones sometimes do. Big online tournaments can have exam-style proctoring, but outside of that it's pretty much impossible to prevent very light cheating -- e.g. consulting a computer for the standard moves in an opening is very hard to distinguish from just having memorized them. The sites can detect sloppy cheating, e.g. a player using the site's own analysis tools in a separate tab, but otherwise they have to rely on heuristics and probabilistic judgments.
Chess.com has some cool blog posts about it from a year or two back when there was some cheating scandal with a big name player. They compare moves to the optimal move in a statistical fashion to determine if people are cheating. Like if you are a 1000 ELO player and all of a sudden you make a string of stockfish moves in the game, then yeah you are cheating. A 2400 ELO player making a bunch of stock fish moves is less likely to be suspicious. But they also compare many variables in their models to try and sus out suspicious behavior.
Computers are banned in everything except specific tournaments for computers, yeah. If you're found out to have consulted one during a serious competition your wins are of course stripped - a lot of measures have to be taken to prevent someone from getting even a few moves from the model in the bathroom at those.
Not sure how smaller ones do it, but I assume watching to make sure no one has any devices on them during a game works well enough if there's not money at play?
Chess being popular is mostly because FIDE had a massive push in the last decade to make it more audience friendly. shorter time formats, more engaging commentary etc.
While AI in chess is very cool in its own accord. It is not the driver for the adoption.
Google Trends data for "Chess" worldwide show it trending down from 2004-2016, and then leveling off from 2016 until a massive spike in interest in October 2020, when Queen's Gambit was released. Since then it has had a massive upswing.
This seems like an over simplification. Do many newcomers to chess even know about time formats or watch professional matches? From my anecdotal experience that is a hard no.
Chess programs at primary schools have exploded in the last 10 years and at least in my circle millennial parents seem more likely to push their children to intellectual hobbies than previous generations (at least in my case to attempt to prevent my kids from becoming zombies walking around in pajamas like I see the current high schoolers).
There’s really no crisis at a certain level; it’s great to be able to drive a car to the trailhead and great to be able to hike up the mountain.
At another level, we have worked to make sure our culture barely has any conception of how to distribute necessities and rewards to people except in terms of market competition.
Oh and we barely think about externalities.
We’ll have to do better. Or we’ll have to demonize and scapegoat so some narrow set of winners can keep their privileges. Are there more people who prefer the latter, or are there enough of the former with leverage? We’ll find out.
Great comment. The best part about it as well is that you could put this under basically anything ever submitted to hacker news and it would be relevant and cut to the absolute core of whatever is being discussed.
This isn't quite right to my knowledge. Most Game AI's develop novel strategies which they use to beat opponents - but if the player knows they are up against a specific Game AI and has access to it's past games, these strategies can be countered. This was a major issue in the AlphaStar launch where players were able to counter AlphaStar on later play throughs.
Comparing Chess AI to AlphaStar seems pretty messy, StarCraft is such a different type of game. With Chess it doesn't matter if you get an AI like Lc0 to follow lines it played previously because just knowing what it's going to play next doesn't really help you much at all, the hard part is still finding a win that it didn't find itself.
In comparison with StarCraft there's a rock-paper-scissors aspect with the units that makes it an inherent advantage to know what your opponent is doing or going to do. The same thing happens with human players, they hide their accounts to prevent others from discovering their prepared strategies.
except chess is a solved problem given enough compute power. This caused people to split into two camps, those that knew it was inevitable, and those that were shocked
A tractor does exactly what you tell it to do though - you turn it on, steer it in a direction, and it goes. I like the horse metaphor for AI better: still useful, but sometimes unpredictable, and needs constant supervision.
The horse metaphor would also do, but it's very tied to the current state of LLMs (which by the way is already far beyond what they were in 2024). It also doesn't capture that horses are what they are, they're not improving and certainly not by a factor of 10, 100 or 1000, while there is almost no limit to the amount of power that an engine can be built to produce. Horses (and oxen) have been available for thousands of years, and agriculture still needed to employ a large percentage of the population. This changed completely with the petrol engines.
It’s sort of interesting to look back at ~100 years of the automobile and, eg, the rise of new urbanism in this metaphor - there are undoubtedly benefits that have come from the automobile, and also the efforts to absolutely maximize where, how, and how often people use their automobile have led to a whole lot of unintended negative consequences.
Fossil-fuel cars a good analogy because, for all their raw power and capability, living in a polluted, car-dominated world sucks. The problem with modern AI has more to do with modernism than with AI.
Depends who you listen to. There are developers reporting significant gains from the use of AI, others saying that it doesn't really impact their work, and then there was some research saying that time savings due to the use of AI in developing software are only an illusion, because while developers were feeling more productive they were actually slower. I guess only time will tell who's right or if it is just a matter of using the tool in the right way.
Probably depends how you're using it. I've been able to modify open-source software in languages I've never dreamed of learning, so for that, it's MUCH faster. Seems like a power tool, which, like a power saw, can do a lot very fast, which can bring construction or destruction.
I'm sure the same could be said about tractors when they were coming on the scene.
There was probably initial excitement about not having to manually break the earth, then stories spread about farmers ruining entire crops with one tractor, some farms begin touting 10x more efficiency by running multiple tractors at once, some farmers saying the maintenance burden of a tractor is not worth it compared to feeding/watering their mule, etc.
Fast forward and now gigantic remote controlled combines are dominating thousands of acres of land with the efficiency greater than 100 men with 100 early tractors.
Isn't this just a rhetorical trick where by referring to a particular technology of the past which exploded rapidly into dominance you make that path seem inevitable?
Probably some tech does achieve ubiquity and dominance and some does not and it's extremely difficult to say in advance which is which?
> The lower-bound estimate represents 18 percent of the total reduction in man-hours in U.S. agriculture between 1944 and 1959; the upper-bound estimate, 27 percent
According to Wikipedia, the Ivel Agricultural Motor was the first successful model of lightweight gasoline-powered tractor. The year was 1903. You're like someone being dismissive in 1906 because "nothing happened yet".
Funny that you say that, because the reason Iran is under sanctions is that Israel wanted it. Obama had agreed to a lift on the sanctions in exchange for a strict control on Iran's nuclear program; Trump and his cohort of rabid zionists remote controlled from Tel Aviv reneged on the agreement and restored the sanctions.
reply