When I’m hiring, a human recruiter (or the hiring manager) reads most resumes.
For us, there is some sorting by basic keyword analysis and we start near the top, but there is no proverbial black box that rejects candidates outright.
If candidates are ignored by humans, it’s not because AI rejected them, it’s because we are starting with candidates earlier in the list and might not make it to applicant 537.
Rather unlikely to be the case, supported by the original article itself here, since if your statement was to be the case they would find that the human generated resume is 100% less likely to be shortlisted.
Obviously it’s not 100% of all human resumes are going to be filtered out, but it’s quite damning that human resumes are more likely to be filtered out just because they didn’t LLM-ify it.
Ukraine has concretely demonstrated their ability to perform deep missile/drone strikes (on the order of ~1500km) onto Russian strategic and economic assets.
Ukrainian drone capabilities in the near battlefield (up to ~20-30km deep) are also not contested. Russian milbloggers will openly talk about the difficulty of massing and movement in that area due to the saturation of drone coverage (and btw, this challenge is more or less symmetric).
So the article is not likely exaggerating any of their capabilities. However, it is exaggerating via omission.
In terms of deep strikes, the question is what the success rate of these missions are, what cadence can they sustain, what's the constellation of Russian lapses that have to line up for a successful strike, etc.
Another known area of weakness (that the Ukrianians are working hard on) is the middle range. How to strike quickly at targets of opportunity in the 50-500km range field. This was/is a capability that things like GMLRS and ATACMS provided, but I imagine the Ukraine is forced to ration those munitions carefully.
From my understanding it seems fairly accurate. A lot of the stuff is pretty public - if drones blow up Russia's stuff they obviously know about it. Also drones get shot down so both sides can have a look at the tech.
The reporting seems a bit misleading suggesting drones kill 30k Russians a month. I think that's total Russian casualties of which drones are a good chunk but not all.
There are lots of APIs with poor or nonexistent documentation. I'm talking about internal systems where one programmer that kinda knew what he was doing built a proof of concept, and now it's a core business requirement.
You can almost always use less RAM by making inference slower. Streaming MoE active weights from SSD is an especially effective variety of this, but even with a large dense model, you could run inference on a layer-wise basis (perhaps coalescing only a few layers at a time) if the model on its own is too large for your RAM. You need to store the KV-cache, but that takes only modest space and at least for ordinary transformers (no linear attention tricks) is append-only, which fits well with writing it to SSD (AIUI, this is also how "cached" prompts/conversations work under the hood).
When they invented cars (and cars became popular and affordable), people did stop walking everywhere. Jogging wasn’t popularized until the 1970s, when we all realized we needed to be intentional with fitness in our car-based society.
This is a US-centric take, in Europe, particularly in cities, we walk everywhere.
There is perhaps some relevance to the analogy however, because the US is designed in such a way that makes walking difficult to impossible. I am already seeing this pattern in vibe-coded areas where engineers will just use AI because it's too difficult to parse and edit by hand.
I didn't. Yesterday I walked 11 km for errands. Today I took a detour when walking to work, a more scenic route with less traffic.
For me walking is not much slower than using public transport (you need to get to it, then from it to the point of your destination), and not much slower than a car (stuck in traffic, finding parking, not to mention the road rage). I'd be faster on a bicycle but I'm not in a hurry and enjoy my walks.
Prior to cars walking anywhere in any street was completely normal. You can watch movies filmed before the 1920s and city streets are full of people walking around or congregating.
If a wagon or trolley hit someone that was considered the fault of the driver, every time.
When cars started arriving and being driven around by people who were wreckless and bad at it, you started getting manufacturers and "motorists" lobbying for the concept and laws around jay-walking. Even the word was a way to delegitimize what used to be normal. "Jay" was negative slang for country-person (think red-neck). The idea was "modern city people stay out of the streets!"
"Fighting Traffic" by Peter D. Norton talks about this at length.
The suburbs didn't exist when automobiles hit the market. Most people lived in cities because that's where the jobs were and transportation (outside of whatever public transportation options the cities provided) was limited. Kids and adults used the streets freely (which were for horses, though they were widened as automobiles started growing in popularity).
This changed as cars killed kids (and adults) who didn't know that cars were much faster than cars and didn't react in time. Traffic deaths were so numerous, cities invested lots of money in "safety parades" that were kind of gruesome, actually (like showing tombstones of the future deceased). [^0] Jaywalking was a crime that was invented to deal with exactly this phenomenon.
People fought HARD to keep the streets free (where else are kids going to play). People lost that battle, as we know.
If it's a crime to jog on railroad tracks, and the avalibility of rail makes it so that everything you need is only accessible by rail, I conclude that rail prevents you from jogging.
I really like the sentiment and will quote this in the future! My own thoughts line up a bit closer to the article though, with this quote being a good summary of it:
> The 1% utility AI has is overshadowed by the overwhelming mediocracy it regurgitates.
It is still bad news. The last sentence refers to things working out for everyone except the reader:
"Sources went on to report that, due a minor oversight that also occurred as you slumbered, your student loans must still be repaid in full and are now subject to a highly predatory ballooning interest rate."
The person will argue since it was in space, no laws were broken. You think the type of guy busy trying to put data centers in space right now is gonna say “mea culpa”?
There's literally no difference between putting it in space and putting it in North Korea or some other country who won't extradite to the US or wherever. Except the massive cost.
> There's literally no difference between putting it in space and putting it in North Korea
Literally no difference except the likelihood of it happening and therefore whether or not we should be concerned about it. What even is this type of argument?
My worry is that networks can be established on and orbiting the moon which become extremely difficult to get data from if someone decides to abuse it.
You can raid a data center if bad actors are utilizing it to break the law, but if some billionaire is using a moon relay to do bad stuff, the best you can do is de-allocate their bandwidth on the spectrum since you can't just hop over to the moon. Or to some craft in space. De-allocation would depend on international cooperation, inevitably. It would suddenly be far, far easier to break the law on networks and become effectively untraceable. This equipment will certainly be privately owned (like the prototypical versions already are) and it will be an extremely potent tool for breaking the law without consequence.
Also it looks like allocation of spectrum doesn't mandate logging, so you could in theory have data centers floating around which don't even trace who did what and how. If any country chooses to facilitate this and allows this communication to be received, and propagates it to their internet, what does the rest of the world do? Is it cause for conflict? Are there ways to stop the traffic from outside of the country?
I'm sure I'm missing tons of pertinent details here and this isn't meant as a totally impenetrable statement about the future. It's more so that I have concerns that this could actually happen based on the limited understanding I have. So feel free to tear it apart and let me know how dumb my idea is.
>You can raid a data center if bad actors are utilizing it to break the law, but if some billionaire is using a moon relay to do bad stuff, the best you can do is de-allocate their bandwidth on the spectrum since you can't just hop over to the moon.
You don't need to raid the data center, you just need to compel the flesh-bound weakling in your jurisdiction that has effective control to cede the effective control. Or hack into it by obvious means.
> If any country chooses to facilitate this and allows this communication to be received, and propagates it to their internet, what does the rest of the world do?
If a hostile country wants to do that they don't need space data centers. Case in point starts with r and end with ussia.
Even if it is in space, somebody assigns the AS numbers and provides peering. You don't have to reach the other end of the rope to cut it.
As a worst-case scenario, you just stop Internetting altogether and only allow information to flow to and from AS that are in your geopolitically aligned jurisdiction.
reply