This question was surely asked before - is there any reason why the platform cannot prevent dupes when submitted? There seems to be a lot of effort to type in dupe and at times (like todays Amazon AI story) multiple posts will generate hundred(s) or comments separately
HN does detect direct duplicates upon submission (ie same url).
But in instances like this one where it's different articles about the same topic, there's presently no real detection. I'm not sure there should be either, with them being different articles and all.
Duplicate articles within a short timeframe, sure. But this is more down to users submitting and/or commenting/upvoting on threads when stories are already submitted earlier. Not reading the site, thinking they're somehow ahead of things. Stuff moves pretty fast. Missed the discussion? Well, there's the link.
Any references on this? I hear this argument a lot. In fact, in a talk on AI last week I heard someone say:
"If you click the thumbs up button to rate a chat, the AI provider will use the contents for training, so our company's policy is never to click the thumbs up button"
That seemed so farcical I had a hard time taking this person seriously. Enterprise plans must give some strong guarantees around data usage, right?
Obviously I can speak only from my personal experience but just me I have 5 examples of companies that were “no AI, IP and all that” that are now full-on “every developer must use CC, Cursor…”
How many conpanes today don’t have “AI strategy” and are fearing will be left behind etc? In my small circle we went from “most are not using AI” to “none are not using AI” in somewhat short period of time
Microsoft already has all their business data in the form of handing document storage and emails. Trusting another of their services to also not use that data for Microsoft's own purposes is reasonable.
there is no state where a moving violation is criminal misdemeanor. some moving violations may be CM but there are myriad of moving violations whose class/degree is not CM. CM is serious class/degree that if you are charged with it you better get yourself an attorney.
That quote is from the judge's decision: he considers that moving violations are quasi-criminal proceedings, and as such, that the protections for criminal prosecution apply, unlike in purely civil cases.
Per the US Supreme Court in Hicks v. Feiock 485 U. S. 624 (1988):
>The substance of particular contempt proceedings determines whether they are civil or criminal, regardless of the label attached by the court conducting the proceedings.
>See Shillitani v. United States, 384 U. S. 364, 384 U. S. 368 -370 (1966); Penfield Co. v. SEC, 330 U. S. 585, 330 U. S. 590 (1947); Nye v. United States, 313 U. S. 33, 313 U. S. 42 -43 (1941); Lamb v. Cramer, 285 U. S. 217, 285 U. S. 220 -221 (1932); Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U. S. 418, 221 U. S. 441 -443 (1911).
>Civil contempt proceedings are primarily coercive; criminal contempt proceedings are punitive. As the Court explained in Gompers:
>The distinction between refusing to do an act commanded -remedied by imprisonment until the party performs the required act; and doing an act forbidden -punished by imprisonment for a definite term, is sound in principle and generally, if not universally, affords a test by which to determine the character of the punishment.
>221 U.S. at 221 U. S. 443. Failure to pay alimony is an example of the type of act cognizable in an action for civil contempt. Id. at 221 U. S. 442.
>Whether a particular contempt proceeding is civil or criminal can be inferred from objective features of the proceeding and the sanction imposed. The most important indication is whether the judgment inures to the benefit of another party to the proceeding. A fine payable to the complaining party and proportioned to the complainant's loss is compensatory and civil. United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U. S. 258, 330 U. S. 304 (1947). Because the compensatory purpose limits the amount of the fine, the contemnor is not exposed to a risk of punitive sanctions that would make criminal safeguards necessary. By contrast, a fixed fine payable to the court is punitive and criminal in character.
Yeah, and most civil cases that have the government acting as or representing the plaintiff against an individual have punitive outcomes - imprisonment for a set time for red flag violations, imprisonment for a set time for failure to pay child support, etc.
this is why going to court pretty much takes care of these tickets. of course, for a lot of people, going to court costs more money than paying the ticket so people pay.
disclaimer: I write software for court houses and am intimately familiar with the proceedings etc. in some jurisdictions these tickets will be outright dismissed and in others you may have to put up a bit of fight :)
If you get a ticket in the mail, go to Court and contest it if you have time.
This is good suggestion in general even if you get a ticket by Officer because if Officer does not show up in Court (this happens more that you’d think) the ticket will be dismissed
I can relate to that -- perhaps it's a bit the feeling of "missing out", like, when your peers have the time (and energy ;-)) to do fun stuff that you just cannot do because of the kids.
But I'm thinking that I had ample time to make experiences earlier in life, and even though I'm going to be close to retirement age by the time the last one of our children is going to leave the house, I still think it was fine the way it happened.
The whole framing of "I'm missing out because I have kids" is already a pretty terrible way of thinking about life, to be honest. I have a good friends who's divorced and with pretty much no circle of friends, apart from me, and he's really having a hard time coping with loneliness. Me, on the other, I cherish each chance I get to spend some alone time where I can just do hobby stuff or whatever, even though these moments really don't happen very often.
that is not much of a timeline and not much of a prediction. first you need to define what “crash” means in real terms. over the course of 4 years there will be market correction (especially after a bull run like we are on) so just saying “ai bubble, crash bla bla” is too lazy (although there are probably 10k+ such “predictions” on HN in the last say a year)
If you're looking for a short term prediction, I expect with, let's say 80% confidence, that the OpenAI IPO later this year will be quietly cancelled or face a WeWork moment and be loudly cancelled. Too much of what we think we know about the economics of modern AI is built on trust in people who aren't trustworthy, and the presumption that VCs would check the financials carefully when we know they strap on blinders once they see a revenue graph they like.
My feeling is that some event will happen close-to-IPO that spooks investors, that results in OAI not IPO'ing. Remember if there are under-writers involved they will not want to go forward.
Then they will face financial distress, and questions over how they get the funding to continue as a going-concern. The only way that'll happen is via issues of shares at a lower price aka destroying the valuation of OAI compared with today.
Anthropic in comparison will be OK, as they have focused on building a viable business enterprise.
Only in the same sense that Lehman collapsing caused the 2008 crash. Nothing is monocausal, and crashes rarely happen all at once, but I expect it to be a big “uh oh” moment for investors.
Lehman’s market cap was an order of magnitude smaller than the current OpenAI valuation, I think even in inflation-adjusted terms. The intuition that a private company is small and can’t pose systemic risks just isn’t true anymore.
Copy/Paste from 1980’s stories like this or you typed it in manually?
reply