Yes, but an alternative would be that if an organism is perfectly fit for its static environment (that hasn't changed in 5 million years) then there is no benefit to evolving novel features.
More likely a dynamic environment is most important for intelligence.
Quit being naive. It is a legitimate security issue. Imagine telling someone 50 years ago we would have a new peer adversary and we’d allow them to sell us robots that roam our homes and offices with microphones and cameras. You’d seem crazy.
I know it’s inconvenient and on a 1-pass thought pattern it seems oppressive, but in the long term it is better to rip this bandaid off. Same with the routers. This is the ONLY thing I can agree with this admin on.
I'd like to disagree but can't. Letting a foreign power "sell" internet connected microphones and cameras into "our" homes is totally asking for it. I wonder what the rules are around security cameras and similar?
Not sure I mind the routers so much. By the time the traffic is traversing the router it had better be encrypted. OTOH an army of domestic routers can at the very least be made into a quite astounding botnet and if we were to dig deeper I'm sure the data around which hardware address comes online and when could be made extremely useful.
In short: you're right. It's not protectionist bullshit, it's a wide variety of reasonable concerns. It also might be a horse that's bolted.
I agree it's an issue but maybe we are going at it from the wrong angle. Why just be scared of the Chinese? We should protect ourselves from both domestic & foreign adversaries.
Any electronic device with vision, sound, or radio communications capability should be required to be source-available or at least independently audited. Proprietary code must run in sandboxed black-boxes that can't directly communicate/interact with the outside world.
Sounds like an impossible ask? Well, banning Chinese robots/routers is also an impossible ask.
yes, it's the chinese you should be afraid of! No, not the people shooting it's own citizens under the guise of ethnic cleansing. It's those scary vacuum robots.
Yeah it's 100% bullshit. The biggest red flag here isn't the use of AI, it's the author thinking we're dumb enough not to be able to detect it easily. That itself is dumb and makes this whole article easy to disregard.
Sorry but I think you’re requirement that something only be “the art” if any arbitrary person can critique it is off.
The frontier labs are working on the state of the art but it’s just art that you aren’t allowed to see.
Unfortunately.
It is work using the principles of the art, obviously.
But "state of the art" implies the highest state of general availability, not just in terms of access to some product, but of use of the ideas, concepts, methodologies etc.
Anthropic and OpenAI have "cutting edge" models; the state of the art is behind the cutting edge.
The state of the art is the best open source, open weights model available. More or less by definition.
That's an interesting and possibly useful distinction , but it seems unique to you. Spreading it as "We should categorize the AIs this way" would be a good argument.
But the way SOTA is generally understood by other users of the language, it refers to exactly the team, technology, & techniques defining the cutting edge in any field, regardless of the whether the technology & techniques are available outside of that team...
The Stack Exchange poster seems to be confusing "State Of The Art" with "Best Practices".
Meanwhile, Wikipedia specifically calls out "Cutting Edge" as specifically synonymous with "SOTA" [0], Cambridge defines it as "the best and most modern of its type" with zero reference to general vs limited availability in the definition or any of it's numerous examples [1], and the same from Merriam-Webster [2].
Having studied and worked in multiple technology fields ranging from software to mechanical & aero engineering for four+ decades, your post is literally the first time I've ever seen anyone even try to make such a distinction between SOTA vs CE. I think it could be a very useful distinction if it were to get into common usage, but IME it is far closer to unique than common. The sibling comments to your assertions show pretty much the same thing - it would be useful, but it isn't common.
Promote it as common and you'll find pushback. Promote it as novel and useful, and it'll likely spread.
I appreciate this distinction. The are multiple senses of SOTA and one that has been taking on greater mindshare is as a synonym of “the best available”. By rebasing on SOTA as generally available and understood versus cutting edge, which has limited distribution and leads the way, we expand the vocabulary we have available to describe what’s going on. Thanks.
I miss that as well but more than likely (at least in the US) that "curated" channel you use to listen to was probably owned by Clear Channel and probably the same exact content played in every other city where everyone else felt like it was for them as well.
Clear Channel didn't really expand in a major way until about the mid-1990s, owning 43 radio stations in 1995, following legislation relaxing station ownership limits (for both radio and television) in 1992.
For those recalling 1980s or earlier radio in the US, the situation was rather more diverse, particularly in ownership, though fairly narrow segment programming was becoming the norm as professional "programmers" entered the field.
More largely, the history of popular music has run through multiple phases of diversification and consolidation as new performance, recording, and distribution technologies emerged. I covered this referencing the work of Charles Perrow some years ago: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24930562>.
I'm confused by your answer, the previous post doesn't seem to be about vibe-coding at all.
It seems to be more about:
1. auto grouping duplicate security reports
2. auto validating if they are likely viable or likely nonsense
3. auto checking if they have recently been patched
4. auto assessing if they likely "invalide" for other reasons (e.g. they are for a very old long time no longer maintained Linux version, out of tree drivers, etc.)
I mean practically all of that isn't trivial to get working in a way appropriate for the Linux security mailing list and comes with many not so obvious complications. But also non of that is vibe coding and in most cases this is is more about AI doing a per-assemsment of send security issues to speed up the review of them, then it is about the AI doing the final decision.
At the end of the day, we would rather have a more stable and bug-free kernel than not.
It's not that much work for me anymore to report and even fix that obscure monitor driver bug that sometimes causes my machine to bootloop, unless I boot without graphics and start the XOrg server manually.
I often find myself surprised at how easily frontier models are able to find bugs across abstraction layers, that only original authors can comprehend. We need more positivity around these contributions as well.
More likely a dynamic environment is most important for intelligence.
reply