With a heavy dose of "if masses of people are fooled by this, it can't affect me as long as I can see through it. No possible repercussions of mass people believing completely made up stuff that could affect laws, etc."
This entire thread reeks of "I'm smart enough to know that videos can be faked, but Jethro in the trailer park isn't because he's just a plumber, and therefore this tech needs to be censored or else Jethro might believe stuff that makes him vote in a way I don't like" going on here.
While the average person overestimates their own intelligence, the average techy dramatically underestimates the intelligence of the average member of the public. The weirdos that latch onto every fake video and silly conspiracy theory are dramatically overrepresented in every online comments thread, but supposed geniuses in the tech/NGO/academic community forget this and assume a broad swath of the public believes in stuff like "Pizza gate" because nuanced thinking is a skill only the enlightened few possess.
Some people aren't very skeptical at baseline, it doesn't mean that those concerned about the ability of others to recognize AI are disparaging people based on intelligence.
For example, some people can be very intelligent, yet not be discerning of information that resonates with prior biases. You see this in those who are devoutly religious, politically polarized, etc.
There is reason to believe that such biases will lend to ontological misinterpretations from algorithmically generated information.
You can see mistakes in interpretation on a day to day basis by the population at large. There are swaths of widely held beliefs that aren't based in truth. Pretty much anyone is likely to believe at least some stereotype, folklore, urban legend, or myth.
It isn’t about being smart (you assumed this is what ‘education’ was pointing at). Most people aren’t even aware of what’s happening besides extremely superficial things that they get here and there on the news. Can’t you honestly see the real potential for massive damage coming out of all this?
With respect to the American public, the majority can and do utilize nuanced thinking as a survival skill. The problem of modern American era, is not that our public is low in average intelligence. Rather, that on average, we have been miseducated to seek the eradication of discomfort, uncertainty, inconveniences, and unknowns.
That radio station in hotel Rawanda could be a bad thing for you and people you cared about even if you personally could discern the lies so it wasn't fooling you.
Actually you overestimate the general public's ability to discern what's real or not. On top of that, most people don't even care if it's real. This is exactly why Trump won.
Example: if a gen ai vid of a politician doing some crazy crime came out. Even if it were proven fake, people would start questioning everything and still act as if the politician were guilty
See the part of my comment you are replying to where I specifically stated that the motivation for all of this is that "Jethro doesn't vote the way I want him to". You've proven my point.
The censorious attitudes on HN were non-existent before Trump won in 2016. I know this for a fact. I've had my account on here since 2012, after 2 years of being just a reader.
Meanwhile, you overestimate how immune to misinformation and lies the average HN techy is. Just a few years ago, the majority of people on here believed, with utter conviction, that the bat-borne coronavirus lab in Wuhan had absolutely no connection with the bat-borne coronavirus epidemic that started in Wuhan and that only bigots and ignoramuses could draw such a conclusion. I experienced this whenever I brought up the blatantly obvious, common sense connection in these same comment threads in late 2020 or into mid 2021. The absolutely absurd denial of common sense by otherwise intelligent people was reminiscent of trying to talk to a religious fundamentalist about evolution while pointing at dinosaur fossils and having them continue to deny what was staring them in the face.
> "just be privileged as I was to get all the necessary education to be able to not be fooled by this tech". Yeah, very realistic and compassionate.
This has nothing to do with privilege, a person in Indian slums on his 2005 PC with internet access can have better internet BS radar than an Ivy League student.
I think that would be an exception rather than the rule, to be honest.
I think though, that if you are in the position of doing serious critical reflection about this stuff, which is in my opinion necessary for being in a position of discernment wrt this stuff, then you are privileged. This is the idea I wanted to convey.
What education do you specifically think is necessary for people with average IQs all over the world to not be fooled by this, given that they are aware that videos can easily be faked in 2024? A high school degree? A bachelors?
You think that the average member of the public isn't aware that videos can be faked with AI, or non-AI special effects, and your source of data for this is "your own experience"? Really?
My family is mostly working class in an economically depressed part of the Virginia/West Virginia coal country, and every single one of them is aware of this. None of them work in tech, obviously. None have college degrees.
I maintain that the attitude driving this paternalistic, censorious attitude is arrogance and condescension.
A prime example of how broadly aware the public all over the world is of AI faked videos was the reaction in the Arab world to the October 7th videos posted by Hamas. A shocking (and depressing) percentage of Arabs, as well as non-Arab Muslims all over the world, believed the videos and pictures were fakes produced with AI. I don't remember the exact number, but the polling I saw in November showed it was over 50% who believed they were fakes in countries as disparate as Egypt and Indonesia.
>>isn't aware that videos can be faked with AI, or non-AI special effects
These two are very different things. My family believes all kinds of videos on the internet are fake. None of them have any idea what a tool like Sora can do. The gap between "oh this was probably special effects" to "you have to notice pixels shimmering around someone's hand to tell" is enormous.
>>My family is mostly working class in an economically depressed part of the Virginia/West Virginia coal country, and every single one of them is aware of this.
Your working class family has time to keep up with the advancements in generative AI for video? They have more free time than I do then. If we're sharing anecdotes about families then my family is from Polish coal country and their idea of AI is talking to your car and it responding poorly.
>>I maintain that the attitude driving this paternalistic, censorious attitude is arrogance and condescension.
I'm confused - who is displaying this "censorious" attitude here?
>> and your source of data for this is "your own experience"? Really?
Yes, really. I mean do you have anything else? You are also quoting things from your own experience.
I’m not (exclusively) talking about formal education. There are lots of people (I would dare say the majority of the planet) that don’t have the ‘digital literacy’ required to handle what’s happening right now. Being from a developed country I am very much worried about this.
Fooled by what? Some of it looks real but is incredulous enough that it should set off your BS sensor. Other stuff is/will be more subtle and we will have no way of knowing.
Definitely. Value of life is estimated and changes all the time across cultures, in wars, life insurances, technological tradeoffs like cars that kill people but we accept the cost…
There’s no universal, intrinsic value to life. It’s us that give it value.
Thanks.
I agree with you, although question the usefulness of going into what I perceive as a more metaphysical direction. In this sense it is trivial that nothing has intrinsic value. But putting on my more pragmatist hat, I would say that there is a sense in which basic survival is very much universal and unquestionable value. "I don't want to die", "I want to be happy", are pretty much safe assumptions to make across cultures and history (yeah, people commit suicide, hence it is not universal, but still a pretty safe bet and worth to consider 'universal' for all practical purposes).
jemalloc is a thread-caching allocator (there are lots of em).
in a multi-threaded environment (basically literally every environment today) multiple threads needing/requesting/expecting allocations will cause lock contention on the data structures that malloc uses to manage memory. thread-caching allocators mitigate the problem by having basically two areas/arenas/places that they allocate from - a local and a global. local means small and local to each thread, and allocations therefrom are fast because they don't require locking. and conversely for global.
"It's nearly impossible to build a rendering engine that never crashes or hangs. It's also nearly impossible to build a rendering engine that is perfectly secure.
In some ways, the state of web browsers around 2006 was like that of the single-user, co-operatively multi-tasked operating systems of the past. As a misbehaving application in such an operating system could take down the entire system, so could a misbehaving web page in a web browser. All it took was one rendering engine or plug-in bug to bring down the entire browser and all of the currently running tabs.
Modern operating systems are more robust because they put applications into separate processes that are walled off from one another. A crash in one application generally does not impair other applications or the integrity of the operating system, and each user's access to other users' data is restricted. Chromium's architecture aims for this more robust design."
That's not possible, as Treesitter doesn't do for example type-checking (unification). It can be used as the parser to generate the AST with which you're actually doing the work.
Agree, though not sure that's what the parent meant. I think they meant:
1. Some LSP implementations use Tree Sitter as the parser in their implementation
2. But it's only part of the implementation. It just generates the parse tree, on which various other LSP features are built, e.g. enhanced syntax highlighting, go to definition, ...
Tree Sitter is pretty good for (1) because it was built specifically to cope with code that is (a) changing rapidly and (b) is, by default, not valid. So it has good error reporting and recovery.
It's slightly worse but a lot faster and better at dealing with spelling/syntax errors. Also, the LSP can render inline error messages and line markers on top of TS highlighting so not much information is lost by just using TS highlighting everywhere.
LSP is a protocol and tree-sitter is a parser generator. They're kind of orthogonal concepts; a tree-sitter parser couldn't ever be used directly in place of an LSP server, but an LSP server may well make use of tree-sitter as a first step for extracting information from the code and keeping it in sync. If it doesn't it'll have to come up with some other way of parsing the code in any case, so I don't see how it could be said to be redundant or inconsistent.
Of course, tree-sitter's thing is how universal it is. There's parsers for tons of languages, and you can work with them all using the same API, though you're on your own for attributing semantic meaning. Most popular languages have language-specific tools (e.g. `libcst`) which are usually more powerful for that specific language, so they'd probably be better starting points for building a language-specific LSP server which I imagine is the common case.
The problem is using Treesitter (for syntax highlighting and "semantic movements") and an LSP at the same time. So if your language has a LSP, using Treesitter additionally is redundant at best and introduces inconcistency at worst.
I'm not talking about using Treesitter as the parser for the LSP.
> Most popular languages have language-specific tools
I'd say even less popular langauges like Coq^H^H^HRocq, Lean 4, Koka, Idris, Unison, ... have their "own" tools, I do not know of a language that uses a Treesitter parser in its LSP, but I do know about tools like https://semgrep.dev/ (written in OCaml) and Github's code search which use Treesitter.
"This is the first of (many) parts in the upstreaming of the Wayland driver for Wine. Since the amount of code and commits is large, my approach is to upstream the driver in multiple parts in a serial fashion, with each part being a cohesive (to the degree possible) set of not too many commits. When each part is reviewed and merged, I will move on to proposing the next part. My main goal with this approach is to make reviewing easier and more focused. If you have other ideas about how to improve this process for the reviewers, please let me know.
A lot of pieces need to fall into place before the driver becomes even remotely functional, so, some MRs (especially the initial ones) will be a bit more preparatory in nature. To aid in the understanding of and justification for some of the code introduced in such MRs, all the remaining driver commits are always going to be available at https://gitlab.winehq.org/afrantzis/wine/-/tree/wayland."
> Is it? I see far more people saying that material possessions don't make one happy than that they do. How many movies, novels, etc, are about living for oneself rather than possessions? How many say the opposite? IMO everyone knows that material possessions are nice to have, in the sense that we all want what we want, but also that they do not produce happiness. Does anyone say otherwise?
Yeah, I agree with you in that it is "common knowledge" that material possessions != happiness. However, I do question that we actually believe this on a level deeper than just an intellectual exercise.
I think that it would be better to be a bit more precise about what we mean by "material possession". For example: would the fulfillment of the desire to be in a love relationship count as "material possession"? I would say it does, in the sense that the expectation is that an external element will fulfill us, because there is something that we currently lack to feel 'complete'. So we might think: "if only I had this relationship with this beautiful person" or "if only I could buy a bigger house", the abstract form being "if only I could have X or Y experience", etc. In this sense I would say that this paradigm is very much the rule in our attempt for happiness, and even if people acknowledge intellectually that it isn't so, it is actually implicit in their worldview and behavior.
> I cannot enjoy the suffering of my children or the torture and murder of the innocent because "they can happen" which I'd be required to do in this so called "enlightenment." What you're describing is pure selfishness and taking pleasure in evil. That's horrific.
Right. You won't enjoy those things. You just won't add additional unnecessary suffering.
Buddhism doesn't teach to enjoy the terrible things about the world, nor to ignore them by some kind of numbness. The whole point is that there is an additional layer of suffering that is entirely optional. This is what they refer to as Dukkha in the "Four Noble Truths".
> Which is total detachment from other people too and their needs and for making the external world better since any attempt to do so would be admitting that things in the external world can really be bad. That's not a recipe for happiness, it's a recipe for total loneliness and, if seriously adopted by enough people, societal collapse. We're a social species, demonstrably. Buddhism as you describe it appears to be a rejection of the real evils in the world, passions, charity, and society.
>"Bliss" built on the enjoyment of evil is infinitely worse than mere numbness.
I think your parents' comments admit of more charitable readings.
"just be privileged as I was to get all the necessary education to be able to not be fooled by this tech". Yeah, very realistic and compassionate.