HN2new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | zaphirplane's commentslogin

We don’t lack the technology to limit scrapers, sure it’s an arms race with AI companies with more money than most. Why can’t this be a legal block through TOS

How is the publisher supposed to fund their operations let along make a profit. How about a 1 year lock on the archive pages. There are many ways of keeping that record but not taking views undermining the business model

> How is the publisher supposed to fund their operations let along make a profit.

There used to be plenty newspapers sponsored by wealthy industrialists; the latter would cover the former's gaps between the costs and the sales, the former would regularly push the latter's political agenda.

The "objective journalism" is really quite a late invention IIRC, about the times of WW2.


The LWN model feels practical here:

> We ask that you grant LWN exclusive rights to publish your work during the LWN subscription period - currently up to two weeks after publication.

News is valuable when it is timely, and subscribers pay for immediate access.

https://lwn.net/op/AuthorGuide.lwn


It's a great question, but they didn't seem to have a problem with this before AI, so I have to assume that the presence of a free available copy wasn't really impacting their revenue.

Maybe it would be better if these news operations had to find better ways to sustain themselves than the current paradigms. Also, the internet archive is not the only archive, and there will be more. This ins't something they can really stop.

I must be a Luddite, how do you have a model working for 12 hours on a problem. Mine is ready with an answer and always interrupts to ask confirmation or show answer

That's on the harness - the device actually sending the prompt to the model. You can write a different harness that feeds the problem back in for however long you want. Ask Claude Code or Codex to build it for you in as minimal a fashion as possible and you'll see that a naïve version is not particularly more complex than `while true; do prompt $file >> file; done` (though it's not that precisely, obviously).

How will these investors get their money. The AI companies either have a competitor invent AGI which means all other AI companies are worth nothing or they themselves invent AGI in which case a whole bunch of companies go broke including the investors themselves.

This money isn’t never going to be returned


A few of these, likely openai and anthropic, will IPO, and the early stage investors will get their cash back then. Others will crash, maybe also openai and anthropic. Other investors in smaller firms may get cash back when the companies are swallowed up by Google, OpenAI, Anthropic, Apple, etc., when the Great and Inevitable Consolidation occurs. I think short term there's a ton of money to be made by investing in these companies. In the long run I don't see how they survive, since nobody in the big leagues has a real technological advantage over anybody else so stiff competition will keep prices low. Even if they cartelize, a startup could beat them on price since there's not much preventing anyone with enough capital from building their own "frontier" models now, except GPU shortages... Talent of course, but there's plenty of smart people out there who would take a big paycheck to do it.

The output is a feature, a bug fix, a product.

Correct me if I’m wrong aren’t they the innovators of multiple things like skills sub agents mcp and whatever this memory thing is agents files

Seriously they are the apple iPhone or AWS of LLM a decade or so ago.


Why doesn’t you ask it and find out ;)

Because the model doesn't know but will happily tell a convincing lie about how it works.

What were the challenges out of interest. Some of it is the use of gcc extensions? Which needed an equivalent and porting over to the equivalent

`asm goto` was the big one. The x86_64 maintainers broke the clang builds very intentionally just after we had gotten x86_64 building (with necessary patches upstreamed) by requiring compiler support for that GNU C extension. This was right around the time of meltdown+spectre, and the x86_64 maintainers didn't want to support fallbacks for older versions of GCC (and ToT Clang at the time) that lacked `asm goto` support for the initial fixes shipped under duress (embargo). `asm goto` requires plumbing throughout the compiler, and I've learned more about register allocation than I particularly care...

Fixing some UB in the kernel sources, lots of plumbing to the build system (particularly making it more hermetic).

Getting the rest of the LLVM binutils substitutes to work in place of GNU binutils was also challenging. Rewriting a fair amount of 32b ARM assembler to be "unified syntax" in the kernel. Linker bugs are hard to debug. Kernel boot failures are hard to debug (thank god for QEMU+gdb protocol). Lots of people worked on many different parts here, not just me.

Evangelism and convincing upstream kernel developers why clang support was worth anyones while.

https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues for a good historical perspective. https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/wiki/Talks,-Present... for talks on the subject. Keynoting LLVM conf was a personal highlight (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6l4DtR5exwo).


Or want to diversify to reduce exposure, after all a loan inherently has a risk. Doesn’t mean ( it could ) it’s a fire sale a eggs basket situation

Not within a mayor’s control


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

Search: