I have no problem with coffee shops intentionally using AI, that said...
It's also worth keeping in mind that a shop owner might google "clip art cup of coffee" and the result was created by somebody who used AI, and the shop owner wouldn't necessarily realize it. At some point, 99% of clip art available online is going to be AI.
I will say I'm afraid to use this style because Gemini seems to love it so much and therefore users will make assumptions about how the website was created.
That might be true for them to know it was AI. Which yes, was how I worded it. But not necessarily good enough for it to be differentiated from everything else.
For example, in the Bootstrap days everything looked like Bootstrap and users got used to that, even if users hadn't specifically heard of the CSS framework.
Here's the context for the "abundance" reference, for those curious:
> I believe that AI could cure most major diseases in the next 5–10 years, greatly accelerate economic growth rates, create a world of abundance and empowerment, and usher in a renaissance of democracy and freedom.
Whether that matches your description of it, I'll leave for folks to decide for themselves.
This statement alone is enough for me to not take literally anything this charlatan has to say with any kind of seriousness. It is at its base so patently absurd a statement that reeks of typical SV brainrot, and I don't know whether it'd be better or worse if he actually believes in the shit he spews
I have high hopes for AI yet am hard pressed to envision said abundance trickling down to the common man. The diseases cured will be locked behind a paywall and a renaissance of democracy and freedom is laughable in 2026, let alone beyond.
Dario and his team are on top of the world. He is a good salesman, no doubt. The shareholders will eat well.
Well you’re in the wrong place for that. Hacker News is mostly about showing how much smarter and more cynical you are than everyone else in the room, and attacking anyone who does actually have principles by accusing them of ulterior motives to justify your own inaction.
no apparently it's for forcing every single article to be somehow relevant to somebody's pet issue, and then used as a platform to comment on that pet issue to signal one's virtue for being principled
of course they can. but this article isn't even tangentially about punishing freedom of speech. it is you who are attempting to make it about that by dragging in unrelated issues.
This is not me putting some unrelated pet issue into this topic; to evaluate David Sack's post arguing against government regulation, it's entirely fair to examine whether he has been consistent. He hasn't. He supported a government-imposed pause on Anthropic because of his political disagreements with the CEO.
Your initial reply of "poor Anthropic" was vague, but I interpreted it as implying that we shouldn't stick to a principle given they are unsympathetic in some way.
You're being downvoted because you clearly have the wrong opinion. If you want upvotes here, please share a conspiracy theory about why the CEOs of AI companies might want to slow down.
It doesn't need to based in reality or even reasonable.
I haven't used a foldable. Is it hard to click on buttons, for example, that happened to be place down the seam? Or has that type of thing been long solved?
The seam doesn't really make a difference for clicking. It's really at the point of just being a large phone screen. It's certainly easier than interacting with elements on the edge of the screen.
It is if you hold it half-open like a book -- you can't get your finger into the middle. Apple has added some sort of support for this scenario in iOS that they were demoing for the Duo.
Which is completely insane. The Venezuelan ship attacks have zero to do with what force was authorized for. The AUMF was for the use of force against those responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Were people on the boats in Venezuela? No. Then it's not force authorized by that AUMF.
But Trump found a smokescreen to hide behind. And Congress is too spineless to impeach him for unauthorized use of military force. And here we are.
I think that's a smart point and seems likely to be attempted.
It presents interesting questions, though. Right now, insurance companies are incentivized to fight for their customer in court against the other driver because they don't want to pay out.
But if the FSD provider is also the insurer, they aren't a neutral party if the dispute is between whether FSD is to blame or if the driver is to blame. It could become adversarial, let's say if the data in the car shows the driver wasn't looking at the road at the moment of the crash and therefore wasn't ready to take over for self-driving.
There might be ways around this, but it's a challenge to overcome. I'd want my insurance company to protect me against my FSD provider, too.
(My point is complicated by the fact that liability coverage is separate, admittedly. My insurer might not want to pay out if I was driving drunk, for example.)
2. The author understandably takes issue with the 35 hours. But I do think it's wrong to confuse the time it takes with the number of lines it ultimately writes. To quote Blaise Pascal, "I would have written a shorter letter, but did not have the time."
"Oh?! You harvested and ground the wheat? You extracted the sugar? You laid the eggs?"
reply