> ranking comfort instead of what you expected to help most
But don't we, in real times, turn to the people we're comfortable talking to? We are not machines ranking the effectiveness of our peers for best outcome, though some of us surely still weigh that! It would be nice to go the most effective route, but sometimes that brings a lot of pain, judgement, or unforseen externalities.
(and hopefully we pick our close social relationships to make us more effective too!)
> "according to your community norms ..." ... without much real reveal
It puts data to what our understanding of those norms are. I don't know if there's a bigger reveal than "yeah, people generally are pretty comfortable with their spouse"
Tbh I was surprised anyone would/could open up and have an emotional conversation with a neighbor (when looking at risk vs reward). But, there are a lot of types of neighbors too.
Was very curious on what was meant by the following:
> The study included a real-time alert system for intervening if a person indicated a high suicidal intent
Because it sounds a bit dystopian.
And found a little more about it[0]
> For example, in our monitoring studies, we install smartphone apps on participants’ phones. These participants are often recruited from hospitals after presenting with high suicide risk. We tell them explicitly that we monitor responses during certain hours—for example, between 9 a.m. and 9 p.m.—and that we will do our best to respond if we believe they are at imminent risk of harming themselves.
...
> We have real-time alerts when someone crosses a predefined risk threshold, and we follow a very detailed protocol that specifies exactly what actions we take at each level of risk. But we want participants to understand that this is not a replacement for clinical care. We are not a “Minority Report” system that will swoop in and prevent harm in every case.
It’s very much an embodiment of the law that says to monitor a system is to interfere with it; it would be very hard to say they “predicted” general suicide attempts vs they set up a scenario that allowed them to nudge people into such actions given everything.
Their job is whatever the government tells them it is, things like this don't just spawn out of thin air, there's usually rationale for it[0].
The post office already does way more than you think it does. Like identity verification on behalf of the government and tracking which houses are considered "vacant" or not.
It would be nice to focus the USPS, but all these extra services have to be done by _some entity_, otherwise you can't have the final result. In this case, the result is a functional, auditable mail in ballot system
Perhaps they can't or refuse to consider ethical arguments surrounding it? It's just tech as-is to them, without externalities (which is disingenuous).
Feels like a language limitation to me. It is hard to describe succinctly the complexities of AI use that preserve a human element or recognizes externalities. The wording is not immediately obvious and require subtlety that I rarely see in HN, unless it's about the tech itself and it's minutae.
Curious to see if HN could have any kind of thoughtful conversation on it but so far I haven't seen one.
It's based on act[0] so it's quite like GitHub actions but not completely [1].
I found in the current version of Forgejo the most secure way to set it up was just to put the runner on a different host. There's a Docker in Docker setup [2] that was challenging to get working correctly but still didn't quite feel secure...
After setting it all up, I'm convinced GitHub actions as a concept is flawed. I wish the community would make a simpler git-defined CI/CD that didn't have the crazy surface area that actions does... Named shell scripts that can call out to other stuff in the runner Docker image and report it to the UI would be a nice start.
Agreed. GitHub Actions feels like someone's science project created while on a mushroom trip. Really you just want a thing that executes a shell script in a runner.
In both the Autumn and Winter examples in the hero images, the algo seemed to have placed buildings on the water in the foreground
In the summer example in the hero images, the building placement + small pockets of water on the left looks odd and low attention to detail. A similar poor quality result as if an uncaring human used a scatter brush...
Curious if the examples are cherry-picked and by how much, or if this is one-shoted
I am sure they are cherry picked. No one would spend time trying to publish results like this without picking the best results they possibly could to showcase.
But don't we, in real times, turn to the people we're comfortable talking to? We are not machines ranking the effectiveness of our peers for best outcome, though some of us surely still weigh that! It would be nice to go the most effective route, but sometimes that brings a lot of pain, judgement, or unforseen externalities.
(and hopefully we pick our close social relationships to make us more effective too!)
> "according to your community norms ..." ... without much real reveal
It puts data to what our understanding of those norms are. I don't know if there's a bigger reveal than "yeah, people generally are pretty comfortable with their spouse"
Tbh I was surprised anyone would/could open up and have an emotional conversation with a neighbor (when looking at risk vs reward). But, there are a lot of types of neighbors too.
reply