The results are not wrong, they are AI. Google wants that to become a distinct thing that is neither. What's a better answer for Google than one that generates more usage? If we all push in the same direction we can make AI work, we just need to accept we will need to hold its hand for a while.
Java or Bedrock edition, and have you tried logging into your EntraID Microsoft Teams for Xbox account lately? Make sure to check the box to keep you logged in!
And if someone makes a server that doesn't do the chat verification, Microsoft blacklists that server in the client-side server address textbox. This system was developed to destroy pay-to-win servers, but they're now applying it against servers that refuse to censor "fuck".
Not as bad as it is now. All I see are suggested posts from people I never connected with and those are full of instagramesque self-promoting banal vibes.
I wouldn't know, somehow this game I bought maybe 15 years ago is no longer playable for me, my account was supposed to be migrated from Mojang to Microsoft or similar, but then that never happened or something, and trying to login now asks me to contact Microsoft support, which I've tried 3-4 times, never had anyone respond to me so who knows how the game is today? I stopped trying at this point...
Personally, once a game I own is janked from my hands because of organizational decisions, that's the time I'll stop consider the game "in good shape", but I'm sure the people who had to buy the same game a second time still enjoy it.
Yes, the account migration was a mess. Support response times were at least 30 days, if you ever actually received a response at all (I never did). I did buy the game a second time in order to play with my kids.
They deleted my account from 2010 because I didn't convert it to a Microsoft one. They baked an incredibly aggressive chat filter into multiplayer, even if you're not playing on official servers. They've added microtransactions for things that we previously free (skins, resource packs). They force you into their shitty, bloated, user-hostile launcher with adverts.
It's been nonstop content-slop since the acquisition. New mobs, new blocks, new items, new blocks, new items, new mobs, new mobs, new biomes. Some of them are good but the totality of adding a bunch of stuff has been to destroy the simplicity that was one of the draws of the original game. Now it's an exploration and niche-mechanics-exploitation game more than a virtual legos game. You don't go mining any more, you find trading loops with villagers.
This was happening to some degree pre-acquisition, but since the acquisition it's been this non-stop.
Some of it's good. The Nether and the oceans were really boring before their respective updates.
They should have called Minecraft "done" around the acquisition time and started on Minecraft 2.
Has nothing to do with Microsoft acquisition... AI usage has increased demand and load. More PRs, more Action runners, more of everything firing. GitHub just wasn't ready for the scale and are now having issues catching up with it as it continues to increase exponentially.
This is a convenient lie that GH likes to tell. Growth is nothing like exponential, its at most 300% over several years according to their own public numbers (presented misleadingly on graphs)
But a couple of years ago they were crowing about how much work they were doing to prepare for “a billion developers”. If they had actually done that then the actual load from agents should have been no problem.
There was an x post in another thread under this post that showed all the standard usage numbers are way up: 14x, 2.1x, etc. And the OP hinted at the usage growth being non-linear for 2026
Yeah, that and Microsoft has been slow to move the infrastructure to something that scales better to handle that load.
The more surpassing part is that Microsoft hasn't figured out a way to manage/contain the AI-sourced traffic better so it doesn't create all this noisy neighbor problems for non-AI usage/users.
Github's core platform doesn't really make that separation, anything a human can leverage on github an AI agent can as well, just faster and with heavier usage. End of day agents and humans are using the same services.
Sure, still need to enable access the same info but feels like bucketing the clients into
bucket1 = clients that were working just fine before (users and whatever automation they had in place)
bucket2 = ai clients that contributed to, if not flat out caused, the scale problems
then slowing down/limiting the bucket2 clients while keeping the bucket1 clients rolling as-is, is both doable and keeps existing customers happy while the underlying infra gets scale/perf improvements needed to support ai clients at scale.
FWIW, I'm not convinced that chart is necessarily an accurate representation of pre-acquisition reality. It would really surprise me if GitHub did not have a single sev-0 pre-acquisition, but it wouldn't surprise me if they were not formally captured and reported in a format that would make its way into their current status page's database.
MSFT was pretty arms length for the first 5-6 years. I was honestly kind of impressed and it made my opinion of MSFT better. But then AI made it too attractive of a target and MSFT couldn't help but make it a place the former CEO wanted to leave (and it has been running headless for about a year now).
It's quite disappointing objectively, but I expected worse from MSFT.
Seriously how is this surprising? We all know AI companies stole troves of data to train their models, why do you think they'll stop? Have they faced consequences for the mass theft of copyrighted data?
You can't steal or profit off of that data, but it's fine for them for whatever reason. I guess because they're a force for good in the world and are pushing humanity forward eh?
I've had my writings directly plagiarized by other people--people who made word-for-word copies of my work, replaced my name with their own, and made a tidy profit on it. They profit more than I ever managed, because they have more resources. In the aftermath, my writings are still "there", not "stolen" in the physical world sense, but my ability to make a living is damaged, and the plagiarism is deeply unethical.
LLMs and "AI" are just one small step removed from straight-up plagiarism. They are massive moral injury[1] machines.
> You can't steal or profit off of that data, but it's fine for them for whatever reason.
The reason is quite simple. When Microsoft steals YOUR work, GDP go up. When YOU steal Microsoft's work, GDP go down. And the people who create and enforce our laws want GDP to go up. To these people morality and rights are a thin guise that can be conveniently discarded when it's invonvenient for them.
Most artists considered it a one to one exchange. They appreciated attribution and were flattered to inspire people. Some got gigs. Some got laid. The money flowed to DeviantArt, hosting providers, and ad providers. The artists were okay with this. They were the ones paying.
Then DeviantArt built a tool to automate the "make a similar image yourself" part and here we are. It removed all the fun parts: the personal contact, the attribution, the inspiration.
Artists realized they unwittingly contributed to the death of not only the community, but the art form they love. Lawsuits pending.
Hollywood has extraordinarily well-defined controls for keeping things legal and everyone in the chain compensated. Plus a separate Oscars category for it.
OP says he has movies in his head and doesn't have to pay royalties. I told him that if he produces a derivative work, he has to pay royalties. Your comment doesn't follow, but I'll address it.
A trivia host doesn't have to pay royalties to ask questions, and the players don't have to pay royalties to answer them. If that turns into "movie night" at the bar then they have to pay royalties to screen the full film. If a professor plays clips in film class, he doesn't.
Your implication is that an LLM is little more than an brilliant film scholar or exceptionally well-read librarian, and that the matter is settled. The billions of dollars in play across a dozen active court cases say it isn't.
Everytime something gets posted on HN about a bad or unfair state of affairs, some cynical nihilist posts “doh why r u surprised” and I’m sick and tired of it. These comments aren’t insightful, helpful or thought-provoking. You’re just helping a bad situation stay bad.
I am also an AI skeptic, but I would rather have used the 1000 monkeys with a 1000 typewriters will eventually write the whole works of Shakespeare analogy.
When you consider the amount of computation which went into this discovery it is less impressive. Like if you spend a lot of fuel you can travel really fast, much faster then a bicyclist. Similarly Go-engines can beat the best humans at go, but they spend several orders of magnitude more energy to do so.
Mathematicians prove or disprove conjectures all the time and use orders of less energy to do so. Using LLMs is kind of just throwing money at the problem and hoping it works. In this case it did. But this is not the most efficient way to do this, and it won‘t scale.
People are marveling at what AI can discover purely out of time and chance. AI will undoubtedly find awesome things because there's very few things we've thrown this much money at. For every awesome thing AI finds, there's a million mistakes, fake leads, hallucinations, etc. Amaze away but let's not forget this is an exception much more than the norm.
Presumably with automated proofs, hallucinations (aka, creativity or confabulation, if we hadn't botched the naming) is a good thing. It's in the empirical world where trusting an LLM is a stupid thing because there's no automated form of fact checking.
That we never see all the mistakes and dead ends a complex system using AI hits?
Does it even matter if its accuracy rate across all its experiments is < 100% if it can run trillions of experiments in the same time a human could run 1?
We don't see many of the failed attempts of Human Researchers. Why? Because it doesn't matter.
What amazing here is that it shows our society can make discoveries faster in the post LLM world. Thats incredible.
As a human, I have many stupid and wrong ideas all day long - most of those don't bubble up to my conscious awareness. If LLMs hallucinate and come up with crazy things, maybe that's ok given that we can filter out the sensible and novel ones.
And in doing so you spend what, a 100 watt hours per bad idea? Compared to how many megawatt hours of AIs failed attempts at proving math capabilities to investors only to prolong the AI bubble another month?
I bet your stupid ideas also taught you a valuable lesson and you learned at least something from the experience, maybe your next idea won’t be so dumb, and those 100 watt hours weren’t actually wasted (though it may feel like they were). Compered to a failed LLM experiment, where all those billions of billions of computations are completely wasted. the model knows exactly as much after a failed experiment as it did going into it. Those Megawatt hours were simply wasted, turned into heat energy, paid for by raising the power bills of the of the datacenter’s neighbors.
It depends upon what you mean. A dream is a stream of unconscious ideas in a way. One could also look at Jungian psychology and point to the ideas your conscious mind rejects by projecting onto others as unconscious ones, with the idea being that we refuse to face them in ourselves and so must put them outward.
Maybe we’re using terms in different ways, but in my mind I have subconscious thoughts, ideas, perceptions, emotions, etc. I’m unsure why you would consider that to be an oxymoron?
Unless you’re defining an idea as something that only exists in your conscious awareness?
Kind of seems to me, the heart of the critique is that 1. unthinkable amounts of financial and social and political credit have been thrown at this which necessarily has deducted it from other fields we could have invested in, instead. 2. Thus, with such wealth you would expect at least a couple of discoveries.
Not my post, but I think point 1 is stronger than 2.
> 1. unthinkable amounts of financial and social and political credit have been thrown at this which necessarily has deducted it from other fields we could have invested in, instead.
That's not necessarily true. If our only counterfactual to investing resources in project A were to invest them in some other project B, then, yes, the conclusion above follows. But often people just consume the resources.
(In the end, the goal of all economic activity is consumption. We invest resources so that we can consume more later. If there's no good enough project around, might as well consume more now.)
Of course. Just look at the SEO industry Google created. You can't search for anything without a full page of sponsored/SEO bullshit, and everyone agrees it's precisely why Google results are less relevant today than 10 years ago. But here we are, this is exactly the same thing. We used to search with a term, Google monetized that. We now search with a sentence, do you think Google's gonna leave that cash on the table?
Yeah man we've been saying negative things about them for like 40 years must we constantly dwell on what they do wrong? It's time we find positive angles
They keep doing negative things that influence the industry and infringe upon the freedoms of hundreds of millions of people. Yes we should keep dwelling on that.
reply