A new study demonstrates that crows can discriminate between patterns with regular and irregular geometric arrangements. Researchers presented crows with images featuring dot patterns and trained them to identify either regular or irregular patterns as rewarding. The crows successfully learned to distinguish between the two types of patterns, even when presented with novel configurations, suggesting they possess an abstract understanding of geometric regularity, similar to primates and human infants. This ability may be linked to the crows' complex social lives and need to recognize individuals and their relationships.
This blog post details an experiment demonstrating strong performance on the ARC challenge, a complex reasoning benchmark, without using any pre-training. The author achieves this by combining three key elements: a specialized program synthesis architecture inspired by the original ARC paper, a powerful solver optimized for the task, and a novel search algorithm dubbed "beam search with mutations." This approach challenges the prevailing assumption that massive pre-training is essential for high-level reasoning tasks, suggesting alternative pathways to artificial general intelligence (AGI) that prioritize efficient program synthesis and powerful search methods. The results highlight the potential of strategically designed architectures and algorithms to achieve strong performance in complex reasoning, opening up new avenues for AGI research beyond the dominant paradigm of pre-training.
Hacker News users discussed the plausibility and significance of the blog post's claims about achieving AGI without pretraining. Several commenters expressed skepticism, pointing to the lack of rigorous evaluation and the limited scope of the demonstrated tasks, questioning whether they truly represent general intelligence. Some highlighted the importance of pretraining for current AI models and doubted the author's dismissal of its necessity. Others questioned the definition of AGI being used, arguing that the described system didn't meet the criteria for genuine artificial general intelligence. A few commenters engaged with the technical details, discussing the proposed architecture and its potential limitations. Overall, the prevailing sentiment was one of cautious skepticism towards the claims of AGI.
This blog post highlights the surprising foresight of Samuel Butler's 1879 writings, which anticipate many modern concerns about artificial general intelligence (AGI). Butler, observing the rapid evolution of machines, extrapolated to a future where machines surpass human intelligence, potentially inheriting the Earth. He explored themes of machine consciousness, self-replication, competition with humans, and the blurring lines between life and machine. While acknowledging the benefits of machines, Butler pondered their potential to become the dominant species, subtly controlling humanity through dependence. He even foresaw the importance of training data and algorithms in shaping machine behavior. Ultimately, Butler's musings offer a remarkably prescient glimpse into the potential trajectory and inherent risks of increasingly sophisticated AI, raising questions still relevant today about humanity's role in its own technological future.
Hacker News commenters discuss the limitations of predicting the future, especially regarding transformative technologies like AGI. They point out Samuel Butler's prescient observations about machines evolving and potentially surpassing human intelligence, while also noting the difficulty of foreseeing the societal impact of such developments. Some highlight the exponential nature of technological progress, suggesting we're ill-equipped to comprehend its long-term implications. Others express skepticism about the timeline for AGI, arguing that Butler's vision remains distant. The "Darwin among the Machines" quote is questioned as potentially misattributed, and several commenters note the piece's failure to anticipate the impact of digital computing. There's also discussion around whether intelligence alone is sufficient for dominance, with some emphasizing the importance of factors like agency and access to resources.
The blog post argues that Vice President Kamala Harris should not wear her Apple Watch, citing security risks. It contends that smartwatches, particularly those connected to cell networks, are vulnerable to hacking and could be exploited to eavesdrop on sensitive conversations or track her location. The author emphasizes the potential for foreign intelligence agencies to target such devices, especially given the Vice President's access to classified information. While acknowledging the convenience and health-tracking benefits, the post concludes that the security risks outweigh any advantages, suggesting a traditional mechanical watch as a safer alternative.
HN users generally agree with the premise that smartwatches pose security risks, particularly for someone in Vance's position. Several commenters point out the potential for exploitation via the microphone, GPS tracking, and even seemingly innocuous features like the heart rate monitor. Some suggest Vance should switch to a dumb watch or none at all, while others recommend more secure alternatives like purpose-built government devices or even GrapheneOS-based phones paired with a dumb watch. A few discuss the broader implications of always-on listening devices and the erosion of privacy in general. Some skepticism is expressed about the likelihood of Vance actually changing his behavior based on the article.
The Asurion article outlines how to manage various Apple "intelligence" features, which personalize and improve user experience but also collect data. It explains how to disable Siri suggestions, location tracking for specific apps or entirely, personalized ads, sharing analytics with Apple, and features like Significant Locations and personalized recommendations in apps like Music and TV. The article emphasizes that disabling these features may impact the functionality of certain apps and services, and offers steps for both iPhone and Mac devices.
HN commenters largely express skepticism and distrust of Apple's "intelligence" features, viewing them as data collection tools rather than genuinely helpful features. Several comments highlight the difficulty in truly disabling these features, pointing out that Apple often re-enables them with software updates or buries the relevant settings deep within menus. Some users suggest that these "intelligent" features primarily serve to train Apple's machine learning models, with little tangible benefit to the end user. A few comments discuss specific examples of unwanted behavior, like personalized ads appearing based on captured data. Overall, the sentiment is one of caution and a preference for maintaining privacy over utilizing these features.
The NSA's 2024 guidance on Zero Trust architecture emphasizes practical implementation and maturity progression. It shifts away from rigid adherence to a specific model and instead provides a flexible, risk-based approach tailored to an organization's unique mission and operational context. The guidance identifies four foundational pillars: device visibility and security, network segmentation and security, workload security and hardening, and data security and access control. It further outlines five levels of Zero Trust maturity, offering a roadmap for incremental adoption. Crucially, the NSA stresses continuous monitoring and evaluation as essential components of a successful Zero Trust strategy.
HN commenters generally agree that the NSA's Zero Trust guidance is a good starting point, even if somewhat high-level and lacking specific implementation details. Some express skepticism about the feasibility and cost of full Zero Trust implementation, particularly for smaller organizations. Several discuss the importance of focusing on data protection and access control as core principles, with suggestions for practical starting points like strong authentication and microsegmentation. There's a shared understanding that Zero Trust is a journey, not a destination, and that continuous monitoring and improvement are crucial. A few commenters offer alternative perspectives, suggesting that Zero Trust is just a rebranding of existing security practices or questioning the NSA's motives in promoting it. Finally, there's some discussion about the challenges of managing complexity in a Zero Trust environment and the need for better tooling and automation.
Summary of Comments ( 67 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43717251
Hacker News commenters discuss the intelligence of crows and other corvids, with several pointing out prior research showcasing their impressive cognitive abilities like tool use, problem-solving, and social learning. Some express skepticism about the study's methodology and whether it truly demonstrates an understanding of "geometric regularity," suggesting alternative explanations like a preference for symmetry or familiarity. Others delve into the philosophical implications of animal cognition and the difficulty of defining "intelligence" across species. A few commenters share anecdotes of personal encounters with crows exhibiting intelligent behavior, further fueling the discussion about their complex cognitive abilities. The overall sentiment leans towards acknowledging the remarkable intelligence of crows while also maintaining a healthy scientific skepticism towards interpreting the results of any single study.
The Hacker News post "Crows can recognize geometric regularity," linking to a Phys.org article about the same topic, has generated several comments discussing the research and its implications.
Several commenters express awe and fascination at the cognitive abilities of crows, with some highlighting the growing body of evidence demonstrating their intelligence. One commenter points out that crows have been shown to understand water displacement, tool use, and even have funerals for their dead. This commenter emphasizes the remarkable nature of these findings given the evolutionary distance between corvids and primates.
Another thread of discussion revolves around the methodology of the study and what it truly demonstrates. Some question whether the crows are actually recognizing "geometric regularity" in the abstract sense, or if they are simply responding to visual patterns and similarities. A commenter suggests that further research could explore whether crows perceive these patterns similarly to how humans perceive them, or if their understanding is based on different criteria. Another user proposes a control experiment to rule out the possibility that the crows are simply choosing patterns based on factors like brightness or contrast, rather than geometric regularity.
Several users draw comparisons between crows and other intelligent animals, like octopuses and dolphins, marveling at the diverse evolution of intelligence in the animal kingdom. One commenter speculates about the potential advantages of recognizing geometric patterns in nature, such as identifying camouflaged prey or building nests.
There's also a brief exchange about the potential ethical implications of recognizing advanced intelligence in animals, with one user suggesting it could lead to reconsiderations of our relationship with and treatment of these species.
Finally, some comments are more lighthearted, expressing admiration for crows or sharing anecdotes about their own encounters with these birds. One commenter humorously suggests that crows may be using their geometric understanding to build increasingly elaborate and stylish nests.