corbin

In lesser corruption news, California Governor Gavin Newsom has been caught distributing burner phones to California-based CEOs. These are people that likely already have Newsom's personal and business numbers, so it's not hard to imagine that these phones are likely to facilitate extralegal conversations beyond the existing ~~bribery~~ legitimate business lobbying before the Legislature. With this play, Newsom's putting a lot of faith into his sexting game.

Well, let's not let Baldur be a complete dumbass. There is something bad here, and we've discussed it before (1, 2), but it's not "US authorities" gaining "control" over "bigotry and biases". The actual harm here is appointing AI-safety dorks to positions in NIST. For those outside the USA, NIST is our metrologist organization, and there's no good reason for AI safety to show up there.

Hacker News is truly a study in masculinity. This brave poster is willing to stand up and ask whether Bluey harms men by making them feel emotions. Credit to the top replies for simply linking him to WP's article on catharsis.

Here's some food for thought; ha ha, only serious. What if none of this is new?

If this is a dealbreaker today, then it should have been a dealbreaker over a decade ago, when Google first rolled out Knowledge panels, which were also often inaccurate and unhelpful.

If this isn't acceptable from Google, then it shouldn't be acceptable from DuckDuckGo, which has the same page-one results including an AI summary and panels, nor any other search engines. If summaries are unacceptable from Gemini, which has handily topped the leaderboards for weeks, then it's not acceptable using models from any other vendor, including Alibaba, High-Flyer, Meta, Microsoft, or Twitter.

If fake, hallucinated, confabulated, or synthetic search results are ruining the Web today, then they were ruining the Web over two decades ago and have not lessened since. The economic incentives and actors have shifted slightly, but the overall goal of fraudulent clicks still underlies the presentation.

If machine learning isn't acceptable in collating search results today, then search engines would not exist. The issue is sheer data; ever since about 1991, before the Web existed, there has been too much data available on the Internet to search exhaustively and quickly. The problem is recursive: when a user queries a popular search engine, their results are populated by multiple different searchers using different techniques to learn what is relevant, because no one search strategy works at scale for most users asking most things.

I'm not saying this to defend Google but to steer y'all away from uncanny-valley reactionism. The search-engine business model was always odious, but we were willing to tolerate it because it was very inaccurate and easy to game, like a silly automaton which obeys simple rules. Now we are approaching the ability to conduct automated reference interviews and suddenly we have an "oops, all AI!" moment as if it weren't always generative AI from the beginning.

For posterity: English Wikipedia is deletionist, so your burden of proof is entirely backwards. I know this because I quit English WP over it; the sibling replies are from current editors who have fully internalized it. English WP's notability bar is very high and not moved by quantity of sources; it also has suffered from many cranks over the years, and we should not legitimize cranks merely because they publish on ArXiv.

We can read between the lines for ourselves. From OpenAI's announcement of Stargate in January, the only equity-holder who has built datacenters is Oracle, and the only other technology partner who has built datacenters is Microsoft. They claim that OpenAI will be operationally responsible, but OpenAI doesn't have a team dedicated to building out and staffing datacenters. In related reporting, Microsoft relaxed its exclusive rights to OpenAI's infrastructure specifically for Oracle and Stargate. As for the motives, I'll highlight Ed's reporting:

The Oracle/Stargate situation was a direct result — according to reporting from The Information — of OpenAI becoming frustrated with Microsoft for not providing it with servers fast enough, including an allotment of 300,000 of NVIDIA's GB200 chips by the end of 2025.

Why is Microsoft canceling a Gigawatt of data center capacity while telling everybody that it didn’t have enough data centers to handle demand for its AI products? I suppose there’s one way of looking at it: that Microsoft may currently have a capacity issue, but soon won’t, meaning that further expansion is unnecessary.

This is precisely it. Internally, Microsoft's SREs perform multiple levels of capacity planning, so that a product might individually be growing and requiring more resources over the next few months, but a department might be overall shrinking and using less capacity over the next few years. A datacenter requires at least 4yrs of construction before its capacity is available (usually more like 5yrs) which is too long of a horizon for any individual product...unless, of course, your product is ChatGPT and it requires a datacenter's worth of resources. Even if OpenAI were siloed from Microsoft or Azure, they would still know that OpenAI is among their neediest customers and include them in planning.

Source: Scuttlebutt from other SREs, mostly. An analogous situation happened with Google's App Engine product: App Engine's biggest users impacted App Engine's internal capacity planning at the product level, which impacted datacenter planning because App Engine was mostly built from one big footprint in one little Oklahoma datacenter.

Conclusion: Microsoft's going to drop OpenAI as a customer. Oracle's going to pick up the responsibility. Microsoft knows that there's no money to be made here, and is eager to see how expensive that lesson will be for Oracle; Oracle is fairly new to the business of running a public cloud and likely thinks they can offer a better platform than Azure, especially when fueled by delicious Arabian oil-fund money. Folks may want to close OpenAI accounts if they don't want Oracle billing them someday.

Reading through the docket, he is entitled to a hearing for relief and has a modicum of standing due to the threat of deportation from the USA to China; it's not unreasonable to go to federal court. The judge was fairly courteous in referring him to the Pro Se Project a week ago. I'm a little jealous of how detached he is from reality; from 36(a) of the Amended Complaint:

The Plaintiff asserts that completing a Ph.D. in Health Services Research significantly increases earning potential. The average salary for individuals with such a Ph.D. is $120,000 annually, compared to $30,000 annually in China, where Plaintiff’s visa cancellation forces him to seek employment. Over an estimated 30-year working career, this represents a lifetime income loss of $2,700,000.

He really went up to the judge and said, "your honor, my future career is dependent on how well I prompt ChatGPT, but statistically I should be paid more if I have a second doctorate," and the judge patted him on his head and gave him a lollipop for being so precocious.

Well, how do you feel about robotics?

On one hand, I fully agree with you. AI is a rebranding of cybernetics, and both fields are fundamentally inseparable from robotics. The goal of robotics is to create artificial slaves who will labor without wages or solidarity. We're all ethically obliged to question the way that robots affect our lives.

On the other hand, machine learning (ML) isn't going anywhere. In my oversimplification of history, ML was originally developed by Markov and Shannon to make chatbots and predict the weather; we still want to predict the weather, so even a complete death of the chatbot industry won't kill ML. Similarly, some robotics and cybernetics research is still useful even when not applied to replacing humans; robotics is where we learned to apply kinematics, and cybernetics gave us the concept of a massive system that we only partially see and interact with, leading to systems theory.

Here's the kicker: at the end of the day, most people will straight-up refuse to grok that robotics is about slavery. They'll usually refuse to even examine the etymology, let alone the history of dozens of sci-fi authors exploring how robots are slaves or the reality today of robots serving humans in a variety of scenarios. They fundamentally don't see that humans are aggressively chauvinist and exceptionalist in their conception of work and labor. It's a painful and slow conversation just to get them to see the word robota.

Starting the week with yet another excellent sneer about Dan Gackle on HN. The original post is in reply to a common complaint: politics shouldn't be flagged so quickly. First, the scene is set:

The story goes, at least a few people don't like hearing about Musk so often, and so we need to let all news about the rapid strip-mining of our government and economy be flagged without question.

The capital class are set to receive trillions in tax breaks off the gutting of things like Medicaid and foreign aid to the poorest and most vulnerable people in the world. The CEO of YC and Paul Graham are cheer-leading the provably racist and inexperienced DOGE team. That dozens of stories about their incredibly damaging antics are being flagged on HN is purely for the good of us tech peasants, and nothing to do with the massive tax breaks for billionaires.

But this sneer goes above and beyond, accusing Gackle of steering the community's politics through abuse of the opaque flagging mechanism and lack of moderator logs:

Remember, dang wants us all to know that these flags are for the good of the community, and by our own hand. All the flaggers of these stories that he's seen are 'legit'. No you can't look at the logs.

And no, you can't make a thread to discuss this without it getting flagged; how dare you even ask that. Now let Musk reverse Robin Hood those trillions in peace, and stop trying to rile up the tech-peasantry.

I'm not really surprised to see folks accusing the bartender of the Nazi Bar of being a member of the Nazi Party; it's a reasonable conclusion given the shitty moderation over there. Edit: Restored original formatting in quote.

The sibling comment gives a wider perspective. I'm going to only respond narrowly on that final paragraph's original point.

String theories arise naturally from thinking about objects vibrating in spacetime. As such, they've generally been included in tests of particle physics whenever feasible. The LHC tested and (statistically) falsified some string theories. String theorists also have a sort of self-regulating ratchet which excludes unphysical theories, most recently excluding swampland theories. Most money in particle physics is going towards nuclear power, colliders like LHC or Fermilab's loops, or specialized detectors like SK (a giant tank of water) or LIGO (artfully-arranged laser beams) which mostly have to sit still and not be disturbed; in all cases, that money is going towards verification and operationalization of the Standard Model, and any non-standard theories are only coincidentally funded.

So just by double-checking the history, we see that some string theories have been falsified and that the Standard Model, not any string theory, is where most funding goes. Hossenfelder and Woit both know better, but knowing better doesn't sell books. Gutmann doesn't realize, I think.

It's been frustrating to watch Gutmann slowly slide. He hasn't slid that far yet, I suppose. Don't discount his voice, but don't let him be the only resource for you to learn about quantum computing; fundamentally, post-quantum concerns are a sort of hard read in one direction, and Gutmann has decided to try a hard read in the opposite direction.

Page 19, complaining about lattice-based algorithms, is hypocritical; lattice-based approaches are roughly as well-studied as classical cryptography (Feistel networks, RSA) and elliptic curves. Yes, we haven't proven that lattice-based algorithms have the properties that we want, but we haven't proven them for classical circuits or over elliptic curves, either, and we nonetheless use those today for TLS and SSH.

Pages 28 and 29 are outright science denial and anti-intellectualism. By quoting Woit and Hossenfelder — who are sneerable in their own right for writing multiple anti-science books each — he is choosing anti-maths allies, which is not going to work for a subfield of maths like computer science or cryptography. In particular, p28 lies to the reader with a doubly-bogus analogy, claiming that both string theory and quantum computing are non-falsifiable and draw money away from other research. This sort of closing argument makes me doubt the entire premise.