No, not really. There was a real wolf and the person dusturbed the operation.
"South Korean police have arrested a man for sharing an AI-generated image that misled authorities who were searching for a wolf that had broken out of a zoo in Daejeon city.
The 40-year-old unnamed man is accused of disrupting the search by creating and distributing a fake photo purporting to show Neukgu, the wolf, trotting down a road intersection"
But there are real wolves when shepherding too. That’s why crying wolf has any power.
To cry wolf is to say there’s a wolf here when it’s actually located elsewhere. The AI photo said there was a wolf at a certain intersection when it was actually located elsewhere.
In fact crying wolf is doubly appropriate because it means disturbing an operation looking for a wolf.
The biggest difference now is wolf is actually sought to protect him¹ from the crowd of the super-predators in town, so they can "give him a calm environment for recovery".
¹ Following pronoun variant used in the fine article here.
If you stipulate that everyone must be relaxing at the time, sure. But the core concept of crying wolf is IMO simply a false alert with no particular constraints placed on those responding. I think in this case it simultaneously qualifies as crying wolf as well as misdirection.
Well it's definitely a false alert but I think maybe I see what's bugging you. If an enemy agent intentionally did that with the goal of disrupting operations we'd call it misdirection and it seems a bit silly in that scenario to also categorize it as crying wolf. Since there's an ongoing search that the guy was aware of you view this the same way.
But have you considered that the criteria arose organically as opposed to being engineered top down to account for edge cases such as this? I think in practice the term can probably apply to any instance where you might consider the longer term reputation of an individual or group that is separate from the response team.
Basically you've decided the two things must be mutually exclusive but haven't provided any reasoning or precedent for that constraint.
Think of it like this: if this same story was happening a couple of centuries ago, pre-Internet, this person who just got arrested would have been sitting at their balcony, crying "the wolf is here! down at the intersection!" ; causing the hunting team to waste time.
Serious suggestion: we flag responses or have a separate flag for comments which are unnecessarily pedantic / the commenter is functionally illiterate / the commenter didn't read (the three things are somewhat indistinguishable).
I find that building a personal blocklist extension for myself lets me treat such threads as fertile grounds. I no longer get annoyed because I am pleased that I can quickly remove a lot of low quality commenters at once. Recommend writing one for yourself (trivial with LLM).
Original comment was clever and subsequent commenters were uninteresting to me. In this case, I only saw it because I’m on my phone which doesn’t have Chrome extensions. Turns out I’d already blocked them.
Well, I was a bit missled by the original comment, then I read the article, found the case to be a bit different than the tale and posted context. But giving the pedantry nature of HN, I should have probably been more clear in my wording to avoid the debate about meaning of words. Because yes, there is a resemblance to the fable, just not literally the same.
I think people are just traumatized the content they've consumed from reddit so anything that reminds them of it, such as OP, triggers something in them because HN is starting to feel the same.
Don't even link me to the comment about how this has always been a complaint on HN, it's boring and it isn't the "gotcha" that you think it is.
That's the true core of the story. Was the man truly trying to mislead authorities or is it more about authorities using the man as a scapegoat to hide their incompetence.
The fable was always relevant, afaic it is still a part of the curriculums. It's also a nice illustration of how LLMs screw up everything they touch - and please don't serve me the old "guns don't kill people - people kill people" argument over this.
Guns primary purpose is to kill. The primary purpose of genAI (image generation goes beyond the scope of LLMs) is not to mislead, they are used successfully by millions of people for purposes that are in no way nefarious. It includes valuable contributions to fields like medicine.
Like most important advances like plastics, nuclear power, diesel engines, synthetic fertilizers, computers and the internet, good and bad things came out of it.
It is like saying that plastics screw up everything they touch, for example when a plastic part is used to replace a more durable metal part, but before realizing that plastics are everywhere in our lives, often without a suitable replacement material.
Since you opted to engage in this off-topic discussion, I'll just point out that the overwhelmingly vast majority of the one billion or so guns currently on the planet have never been used to kill anyone. It's statistically far more accurate to say their primary purpose is to defend, with killing much further down on the list.
A shield's purpose is to defend, or a bulletproof vest, or...
Try using a gun for that and it ain't gonna work. You might say that a gun's purpose is to deter? But the only way it can defend is by producing lethal force, so the defense can only be a potential secondary effect.
:) Wow you are getting ahead of yourself aren't you. LLMs are dangerous tools that any moron nowadays has access to. They can fabricate images of wolves roaming the streets, hallucinate fake arguments that sound really convincing and even coach people into committing a suicide, as you probably heard in the recent at least a dozen cases. I can't quite see the comparison you are making. It's not like you have access to a nuclear reactor or whatever other dangerous technology you wanted to lump in with it, at your finger tips, do you? This is because those other dangerous technologies are carefully managed. So now follow where I am taking this, I'll be explain it really simple. Guns are really easily accessible to people in large parts of the US. So some people will use guns to kill other people. Sometimes its an accident, like kids playing with daddy's gun and shooting their sibling. Some people argue that guns should be restricted, as it would reduce such accidents and incidents. But some other people say "guns dont kill people - people kill people". Now LLMs are as a dangerous technology, accessible to most anyone not just in the US, but around the world. Also easier to use. So anyone with basic command of language and ability to clank on a keyboard can "use" it. To the point that some people not only harm others, like this Korean champ, but also themselves, like those people who were goaded into committing suicide. Now my point was, and it should not have been that hard to see, that your argument is precisely of the "guns don't kill people" variety. The point is, if the chatbots that we pompously resigned to call "artificial intelligence" make mistakes 30-40% of the time, and we use them to verify information, they are dangerous and should not be allowed to use for such purposes as misleading generating public. Because that is dangerous. Now, in your small little selfish world, maybe they are "everywhere", meaning, you can offload your thinking to them, and maybe you even use them to write emails and summarise other people emails so you don't completely drown in your boring office job. But it does not mean you should compare them to anything you listed above. Those small "benefits" do not account for overall shittines of this so-called technology.
The world can't be that advanced when you have people shoving their religious imaginary friends in every sentence and then feigning victimhood for having it called out.
Absolute insanity from other commenters here. I totally disagree about it being hard to read - it’s fine.
And others bitching about being instructed to read the whole thing, clearly didn’t.
It’s not JUST about Proton Meet. The article goes on to point out that even for Proton Mail, around 10,000 foreign subpoenas were complied with last year.
It draws attention to the STARK contrast between their messaging and their actual culpability when it comes to compliance with foreign powers.
The author also goes on to talk about the hypocrisy in Proton’s use of AWS, Google, DigitalOcean and Google and Apple app stores, which goes to more or less completely undermine Proton’s standing here.
It’s also worth drawing attention to their class action waiver, AND their bizarrely hypocritical ToS which flies in the face of their positioning.
Which, you know, others would have found out if they read before commenting.
>Absolute insanity from other commenters here. I totally disagree about it being hard to read - it’s fine.
>And others bitching about being instructed to read the whole thing, clearly didn’t.
The problem isn't that it's indecipherable, it's that the reader feels their time isn't being respected. If the author (seemingly) can't be bothered to put the time into writing a blog post, resorting to AI generated slop, why should readers devote time into reading it in its entirety?
>Which, you know, others would have found out if they read before commenting.
Part of your job as a writer is to get your readers to actually read what you're writing. If you want to write about how Trump sucks with the aim of convincing Trump voters to change their minds, but start off with a diatribe about how Trump voters are brainwashed cultists, that's poor writing even if it's theoretically not "hard to read".
Proton is very active in HN and other sites, and notorious in “debunking misinformation”, at least used to with their official account, so maybe now they went in different approaches of debunking and try to discredit criticism. You also have the fanbase phenomenon, rooted from some denial of active users, so such articles always get attacked one way or another.
Am I losing it? They can’t be seeing the far side of the moon right now, because they haven’t adjusted course to go round the far side of the moon yet…
So does this suggest the BBC is wrong and it’s the side of the moon we’re used to seeing, but just it’s “dark”?
But then the astronauts are saying it’s weird seeing the moon in a whole new light (excuse the paraphrasing pun).
They're already at a point where they see the moon from a different angle than we see it from Earth, enough to see a bit of the side that we can't see from here.
It took me this diagram to realize they're shooting to where the moon will be, when they cross its orbit, and are not flying straight at the moon. /facepalm
>they haven’t adjusted course to go round the far side of the moon yet
They did, 3 days ago! Maybe this is being pedantic (?) but the trans-lunar injection burn they did on April 2 put them on the complete trajectory including return to Earth. Though there are still possible correction burns that can be done to increase precision (the first 2 of these were already canceled).
Imagine you're holding a ball with drawings on it. Hold it out at arms length and fix how it looks in your memory. Now bring it close to your face and move your head a tiny bit to the side. You're not seeing the whole back-side of the ball. Far from it! However, you are seeing some bits you weren't seeing before and the whole picture you can see now looks different than it did when the ball was at arm's length.
That's my guess. They're seeing parts of the dark-side of the moon because they're now close enough that they have a different viewing angle than we do on Earth. Remember, they're not flying straight at the moon. That's not how transfer orbits work.
"Dark side" is used to describe the part we never see from earth's vantage point, not a part that gets no light from the sun. Definitely confusing for the uninitiated though.
I was also very confused, but after some reading I figured it out.
> In an interview with NBC News from space, NASA astronaut Christina Koch described seeing the moon out the window of the Orion capsule and realizing that it looked different from what she was accustomed to on Earth.
> “The darker parts just aren’t quite in the right place,” she said. “And something about you senses that is not the moon that I’m used to seeing.”
They are not on the other side of the moon seeing the full dark side, but from their position they're seeing the moon at a slight angle, meaning that SOME of what they now see is "the dark side", or the part we can never see from earth since the same side always faces us
Remember that they’re not flying towards the Moon but to a point in space where they and the Moon will be closest together in a day or two, hence the Moon is now ‘off to their side’ and they can see a segment of it that is hidden to Earth observers … I think.
Also, the dark side of the Moon is often illuminated but we call it dark because it’s also hidden from earth due to the Earth and Moon being tidally locked (the same side of each always faces the other body).
The same side of the moon always faces the Earth. If the same side of the Earth always faced the moon, then only one hemisphere would be able to see the moon. Since you can see the moon from everywhere on Earth (not at the same time...), we know that the same side of the Earth does not always face the moon.
Unless you're thinking of the "outside" of the Earth. /s
I think we call it "dark" because the term was coined when the English language was used in a more poetic sense - at least it seems like that to 21st century-me. "Dark" = "it has not been made visible to us".
I've just been reading Narnia stories to my son and lots of the language seems dated and initially confusing but very descriptive and more poetic. Even though that was just in the mid-20th century.
It got deleted now. It would be nice to see a new versions if abailable.
So, let's make some guess, but IANAA. Orion is in the middle of the trip going to the meeting point to the Moon in a quite straight line but the Moon is still not there. It will be there in 2 or 3 days, that is like 45° of the orbit.
O . . o
Earth > . . . . Moon
Orion in 3 days
.
.
.
.
.
.
o
Moon
now
Using some sloppy Math and sloppy Astronomy, I estimate that the difference between our point of view and their point of view is 20° or 30°. So the visible surface has like a 10% difference, that is consistent to call it a "glimpse". My estimation is also similar to the graphic posted in Reddit, but I'm not sure what was the problem.
I actually can't tell the difference in the photo to save my life, but I have a friend that is astronomer and I'm sure that if I show the photo to him, he could use a sharpie to mark the difference on my screen without any problem.
I think they're saying they can see a sliver of the far side, and that seeing the moon from a slightly different angle is weird having seen the near side so often. But they didn't really make that clear.
They've actually already on course to go around the moon for a couple days! There's been the option of performing some some minor course corrections to make sure they look back around to the right Earth orbit, but I think those haven't actually been necessary
Source: NASA's YT channel + way too many hours playing KSP. Skipping the course correction burn yesterday gave them the opportunity to try and unclog the liquid waste valve
They did that change a long time ago. They are on a course
to go around the Moon from the TLI burn (trans lunar injection) Thursday at 7:49pm EDT. They don’t need any more burns for that.
Their own (presumably cherry picked) benchmarks put their models near the 'middle of the market' models (llama3 3b, qwen3 1.7b), not competing with claude, chatgtp, or gemini. These are not models you'd want to directly interact with. but these models can be very useful for things like classification or simple summarization or translation tasks.
These models quite impressive for their size: even an older raspberry pi would be able to handle these.
There's still a lots of use for this kind of model
The average of MMLU Redux,MuSR,GSM8K,Human Eval+,IFEval,BFCLv3 for this model is 70.5 compared to 79.3 for Qwen3, that being said the model is also having a 16x smaller size and is 6x faster on a 4090....so it is a tradeoff that is pretty respectable
I'd be interested in fine tuning code here personally
One thing I think would be very useful here is national archive data: there will be thousands of letters, memos and official documents shared between people alive back then under the care of a museum or government.
One of my dreams is to help digitise and make available the thousands of Second World War-era documents in the National Archives at Kew.
We’re at the point where a simple phone camera and a robust LLM-powered process can digitise ENORMOUS amounts of archive material almost effortlessly [1]. This is going to be enormous for historians eager to dive into the millions of interesting primary sources.
The teachings of the Buddha explicitly encouraged it. Buddhism is the only religion I know of that instructs you to fully abandon it, as once you’ve fully grokked what it has to teach… you won’t need it any more.
IIRC the Buddha said it was like carrying the oar of a boat: once you have used it to get you to your destination (nibbhana), carrying it is needless.
The fish trap exists because of the fish; once you've gotten the fish, you can forget the trap.
The rabbit snare exists because of the rabbit; once you've gotten the rabbit, you can forget the snare.
Words exist because of meaning; once you've gotten the meaning, you can forget the words.
Where can I find a man who has forgotten words so I can have a word with him?
I was surprised to see Jack Kornfield, Sharon Salzburg and Joseph Goldstein not mentioned here.
They’re the founding forces behind the Insight Meditation Society in MA, which although isn’t the West Coast, is perhaps the most influential force in popular Buddhism in the West.
Kornfield also set up Spirit Rock Meditation Centre in California though, which gets tens of thousands of visitors a year.
Having dived really quite far into Buddhism over the past five years, I’ve found their flavour of Insight Meditation (as per the New Burmese Method based on Mahasi Sayadaw’s teachings) absolutely life changing.
A great read, thank you for sharing.
If anybody is interested in reading further - Goldstein’s podcasts, Mahasi Sayadaw’s writing, Kornfield’s introductory texts and ANYTHING by Bhikku Bodhi are a phenomenal place to start.
Be Here Now network, which started with Ram Dass, still does mostly weekly videos from Goldstein and Kornfield. Search for their names where you listen to your podcasts. Incredibly good to listen to.
Other ones I listen to are in the Thai Forrest Tradition, started from Ajahn Chah and now talks from Abhayagiri, Amaravati. Other one from Mahayana, which has so many talks and probably the best book I've read, Seeing That Frees, is Rob Burbea. He died from cancer in 2020, which is incredibly sad given how young he still was and much he's produced for us.
All of these people give different angles on the teachings of the Buddha. I highly suggest listening and reading from these people and the differing traditions all talking for similar goals of how to look at the world for the acknowledgement of dukkha (pain / suffering) and how to deal with it. You don't need to sit and meditate either to get the benefits.
yea I'd +1 this. It's a real blindspot in the author's writing. I don't think you can write about meditation in the US without mentioning IMS. Headspace and all the other mcmindfulness apps that start with "focus on your breath" are all derived from Insight meditation. I've sat IMS, it's an incredible facility.
I think the MacBook Pro 2015 was probably unrivalled as a laptop for around 6 years, in terms of build quality, specification and… sheer love. I had a work issue machine and absolutely worshipped it, so I was sad not to see that here.
I remember when Apple unveiled the first ever MacBook Air. That was one of Jobs’ all-time greatest presentations, and it was a huge step forwards that still influences the laptops we use today.
Also missing… the white Apple earphones that came with the iPod! They didn’t sound great but they carried so much COOL for most of the noughties.
I think FaceTime ought to do well here too. That’s done more to bring the 1980s vision of “everybody will video call all the time” into reality than anything else I think (I know Apple weren’t the first, but they made it ubiquitous).
> They didn’t sound great but they carried so much COOL
That's the trick Apple during the second Jobs tenure was most brilliant at: turning consumer electronics into a fashion accessory. Literally, making the sound of the earphones a secondary consideration, relative to their earring value.
Something tickles me about describing the forced inclusion of Copilot as “entry points” in things like Notepad. It reveals Microsoft’s intentions SO precisely.
They aren’t trying to add Copilot in useful ways for their users. They’re forcing it into Notepad when they know it doesn’t fit there, because it might be your “entry” into their slop generator.
User experience be damned, these shareholders must have their value.
There’s something hilariously poetic about a ~2,500 year old fable being relevant today, because of AI.
reply