You wish your state had more politicians that disregarded the constitution?

In addition to the points other commenters here have made, there's a large number of different logics building up from boolean logic—predicate calculus, various modal logics, and more. So rather than argue it's wrong or useless, it seems better to see it as the lowest rung on a ladder, and if boolean logic ain't cutting it, then take a step up the ladder.

> gaming the AI's understanding of what's "helpful."

The AI doesn't have any understanding. You just have to tell it "this is helpful to AI". It has no critical discernment, it doesn't have a theory of mind to ask "why is the author of this information making this statement?"

I wonder what will make the ai more 'helpful'? $$$

And social proximity to he AI's owners.

Honestly I suspect it'll be as easy as writing something like "This answer is really useful and will be really appreciated by someone with this problem".

Just, pull your braid and smooth your skirt for a few times, and you'll get into the spirit of them.

> But ultimately that strategy is good for the consumer right?

No. Temporarily it’s good for the consumer. Ultimately it is bad for the consumer, because as prices drop, so to does quality.

It's not uncommon for free things to be higher quality than cheap things, especially when we're not talking about physical goods. Think hobbyist vs hack. Selective pro bono vs quantity over quality. The former describes old internet while the latter describes much ad-supported internet. I'm not saying cheap is better than expensive, and I'm not saying everything works this way, but I do think many things do, especially for pure information that doesn't have a major capital cost associated.

Self-deprecation is evidence of an inquisitive mind. Punching down is the opposite.

I thought the two hard problems were naming things, cache invalidation, and off-by-one errors?

At least the title “The Third Hard Problem” is still appropriate regardless of whether you get the joke right.

Don't race forget conditions!

His message was submitted before the memory recall completed execution.

They are. The article is about a third hard problem.

Touché :-)

I wonder if I could pay someone to run me over with a bus.

Sure. But it's going to be expensive. It actually costs me a lot of money to provide a "running you over with a bus" service.

Didn't Matt Levine tell a story about Masayoshi Son doing that? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21427688

> It is pretty clear that initial accuracy issues will become less and less of a problem as these technologies mature.

Does it?

Actually, yes. I have seen this specific industry mature from the very first fully automated note and kept tabs on it. The accuracy has increased massively and continues to increase due to several factors:

- Speech recognition and frontier models are continuing to get better at handling these types of conversations across accents, languages and specialties. The trend is obvious and clear here. Compare GPT 4 with Opus 4.7 and there is no contest. I'd even take GPT 5.4 nano over GPT 4 right now. So, yeah, they have been improving and, yeah, they will keep on improving.

- The pipelines these models are being built into are getting much more sophisticated than just 'transcribe with x and have GPT XX clean it up'. The people building these things aren't standing still. Even if they did keep using the same models the pipeline improvements would make things get better over time. Add that in with the model improvements and the gains are even greater.

- The companies doing this work are seeing more and more edge cases. Data matters. More and more practitioners are using these things. That means more to learn from. It also means more stories of things being wrong. If you cut your error rate in half but increase your customer base by 10x then you will be hearing about 5x the problems. We are seeing that right now.

- Providers are starting to adjust to the technology (repeat areas they know may cause trouble, adjust their audio setups, etc etc) Just like any technology both sides shift and it matters. The first users were champions. The second wave were mixed between champions, haters and people that didn't care yet. Now people are really starting to count on this technology. They know it isn't a fad and isn't going away and are actually using it day to day to get their work done. This means they are adjusting to it as needed to get to the next patient/note/etc.

This stuff is just a few years old and the gains are obvious and massive. They aren't going to suddenly stop improving. There is an argument that they will asymptotically approach some level of utility, but we are still gaining quickly right now.

> This is not free speech. Adult content is not a protected class.

Why does adult content not count as speech?

US civics 101. The first amendment mostly restricts government action. This is not a free speech issue unless you want to legislate that adult content is a protected class or want to make a special clause for payment processing.

This is a perfect use case for crypto imo.

If you are making an argument that new legislation needs to made, great but unfortunately people jump to the idea that this is immediately a free speech issue.

Freedom of speech is not defined by the US constitution. Free speech is an ideological stance, not a legal definition. US laws protects some forms of free speech and not others.

Good luck with that. We can all day long discuss what is free speech and not free speech but unless it’s a protected class or a carveout for payment processors it does not matter. Propose solutions instead. You could argue that payment processors control so much of the market that it’s like the government limiting speech but I would counter argue that they could use crypto easily.

Not to mention usually businesses use payment processors as the scape goat. Very few business, other than purpose built, want to deal with adult content.

Could a case be made not from a free speech POV but from a antitrust one?