Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | compass_copium's commentslogin

I call it a pro-human bias, personally.

I would consider myself an M365 power user and I was not aware of this. It is not well promoted--and after all the Copilot crap, I would be annoyed even if it was.

Regardless, I just tried to log in with my work MS account, and I can't do so.


Enterprise is Copilot Cowork one of the frontier agents. Has to be enabled by your organization I believe

Don't forget Tay!

I dunno, the same way they did for decades with public libraries?

It's not a communication with a lawyer, though. Asking a guy on the street if it's illegal to sell the meth you have in your pocket is not privileged communication, and he could definitely testify about that after you got arrested!

That would be hearsay, yes?

Why? He heard you say it and can testify to it.

Repeating something that you heard someone say is the literal definition of hearsay. Typically courts want to hear about facts from people who actually know those facts, not someone who heard someone talking about those facts.

This would fall under the "statement against interest" exception to hearsay, though, because obviously the person who originally said the thing isn't going to want to admit in court that they were committing a crime.


The fact is that he said it.

You aren't repeating a fact you heard him say, you are reporting what you heard him say.


Reporting what you heard someone say is the literal definition of hearsay.

If you want to use someone saying something as evidence in court, they need to say it to the court as directly as is practical. If the person saying it isn't going to say it directly to the court, then it needs to be justified with one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule.

In this example, it would be allowed because the person saying it wouldn't be willing to admit to a crime in court.


It's a statement not offered to prove the truth of the asserted statement - non-hearsay.

It would be hearsay if offered as evidence that you had meth in your pocket. It would not if offered in evidence you were enquiring about the legality, to show intent.


‾\(o O)/‾ maybe, IANAL

This is directly addressed by the author and part of the post? Tools were very expensive until gcc etc., and the internet made excellent free guides available.

and there are free models available. and free ways to run them...

they also addressed this and talked about how competitive models can't run on the weaker hardware most people have

most of the available services (anthropic, google, openai, xai, deepseek) have a free tier. you can't use it extensively, and have to wait... but its there.

programming has always gates... today is no different. arguably, there are quite a lot more free options than there were when i was coming up.


And prior to the desktop computer, you had to actually go work at a laboratory in order to do any programming whatsoever, which required significant amounts of educational and social access

What’s the point?

Writing deploying and delivering software has never been as accessible as it has ever been

Much like the author I learned on my own too and with a lot less help because I didn’t have a parent even guiding me through it


that is literally what this article is about, how returning to that is a bad thing

But that is not under threat and I’m not sure why people think it is

None of the arguments demonstrate even accidentally that there is LESS knowledge or fewer options.

This is the least locked in period and the better AI gets it will be an option to be even less locked in because you can just build and run everything yourself on your own hardware

Literally anyone can run the equivalent of an entire datacenter from 2000 on a handful of retired servers and old laptops at this point.


...that require fairly expensive computers.

No one is "forcing" you to drive a car to get to work, either. You could walk 20 miles if you live somewhere without decent public transit.

My view is that the author is talking about having a knowledge of career-relevant skills, developed for free.

If you can't develop the skills to be competitive in an interview without using LLMs, then you are forced by societal factors to use the LLMs.


was it developed for free? he has a computer, which i'm assuming he paid for. and you can run LLMs locally. and those will catch up eventually.

there has always been a moat, with varying levels of depth. do you have electricity? do you have a computer? can you afford internet?


Aluminum should oxidize essentially instantly.

True; however, this is an aluminium alloy. These typically have lower corrosion resistance and are most commonly anodized because of it. The applied layer is typically 3 to 5x thicker than that formed by pure aluminium oxidization.

You're off by at least 3 orders of magnitude, anodization is like 1,000x~5,000x thicker (5~25µm) than the natural oxide coating (~5nm).

Anodizing and oxidation are 2 totally different things.

anodizing is literally oxidizing

Yes but anodization implies thickness around ~5–25 micrometers (µm) for aluminum. The natural oxide coating is ~2-5 nanometers (1,000–5,000× less thick).

We still expect high school students to learn to use graph paper before they use their TI-83, grade school students to do arithmetic by hand before using a calculator. This is essentially the post's point, that LLMs are a useful tool only after you have learned to do the work without them.

A Musk joint immediately after an IPO. ATM puts will be trading at what, 250% IV?


Probably. Hey, you picked a risky thesis heading into large uncertainty, that's not free.

But for the folks who are dead convinced it's all just a scam and it will quickly collapse, that's a way to put their money where their mouth is.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: