Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | qbit42's commentslogin

You think many are built without any assistance for coding? My impression was that people were mostly concerned about game assets like graphics and music

I think many are built without the use of gen ai to create assets. Obviously, the term "AI" is flexible enough that you could clarify every piece of software as involving AI if you wanted to, but I don't think that's productive.

I would assume that if a tool is there and the alternative too costly that they would use the tool instead of buring their project. Just today I stumbled over this for example, where they use GenAI as well: https://reddit.com/comments/1prqfsu

Do you have proof that many are using AI for coding?

Not for coding, but today I stumbled upon these two building their passion project using GenAI, which would otherwise perhaps not be possible: https://reddit.com/comments/1prqfsu

It is nicer to state theorems that hold for all vector spaces, so mathematicians like to invoke AoC. However, in any applications that are practically relevant, you can obtain a basis without invoking AoC.

Netflix wasn't buying CNN.


I don’t think many researchers take peer review alone as a strong signal, unless it is a venue known for having serious reviewing (e.g. in CS theory, STOC and FOCS have a very high bar). But it acts as a basic filter that gets rid of obvious nonsense, which on its own is valuable. No doubt there are huge issues, but I know my papers would be worse off without reviewer feedback


That is a fair assessment. By and large it is used for the former. It is super handy in the exploratory phase of certain kinds of mathematical research.


I don't want to have to create an account to view the full context.


Sometimes statistical rates for empirical risk minimization can be related to the intrinsic dimension of the data manifold (and noise level if present). In such cases, you are running the same algorithm but getting a performance guarantee that depends on the structure of the data, stronger when it is low dimensional.


Why? They're providing food for stray cats.


Is this falsifiable? I would be hesitant to claim that this is unique to humans. I'd probably agree with dogs, but the line is much blurrier with primates, for example.


I'm open to any evidence. I doubt we can find a Chimpanzee that sat, thought about it for awhile, slept on it, and then decided it's time to live like a Bonobo. I think the best evidence we have are actual metamorphosis that you see from a tadpole over to a frog, things of that sort. We're the only species that can do something to our nature actively.


Because we basically have none.


I know lots of people annoyed by ads, but I also have family that buy things advertised on Instagram all the time.


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

Search: