Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The original URL for this prediction will no longer be available in 11 years (2011)

longbets.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 106 posts

Re: The original URL for this prediction will no longer be available in 11 years (2011)

#61

Post by aws_ls »

mg wrote: post #14

It is actually pretty easy to keep alive URLs if there is a will to do so. Just have tests in place so you can't mess them up accidentally. And convert things that are not changing anymore to static html. One of my first web projects involved a music forum and I have been keeping the URLs alive for 24 years now: https://www.gnoosic.com/discussion/ I feel like I owe it to the people who participated to keep it online…

> I feel like I owe it to the people who participated to keep it online forever. Also as a document of history.

Oh! So its your website. Cool.

Did the money change hands, for this bet, in 2022? How do you ensure it. Or is it honor based?

Re: The original URL for this prediction will no longer be available in 11 years (2011)

#62

Post by JoshTriplett »

munch117 wrote: post #42
ludwik wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my mind, the part that is most likely to fail is "return an HTML document that still contains the following text." Nowadays, more and more "HTML documents" do not contain any content at all, just some JavaScript that is responsible for then fetching and displaying the content.

If the text was returned using a staged process, whereby the server first returns an instruction (JavaScript), and the web browser then executes that instruction, which is what transfers the text, then that doesn't actually change anything. Those are just technical details of the transfer. You are viewing an HTML document on-screen; it makes no difference to this bet if it was returned to you by a different mechanism…

> or command line tool (like curl)

Even if you interpreted the bet generously to allow for a browser to render the content using JavaScript, if I understand the bet correctly, the condition of working with a command-line tool like curl would fail.

Re: The original URL for this prediction will no longer be available in 11 years (2011)

#63

Post by echoangle »

DharmaPolice wrote: post #60
andai wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a paper a while ago, where they found a strategy for GPT beating humans on the Turing test 2/3rds of the time. They just prompted it to talk the way a 13 year old girl texts. (Also they prompted it to pretend not to know anything about anything.)

I feel like pretending to be a child is cheating somewhat. Might as well print random key presses and claim it's a toddler.

[dead]

Re: The original URL for this prediction will no longer be available in 11 years (2011)

#64

Post by JoshTriplett »

tredre3 wrote: post #19
kijin wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the parent is referring to the possibility that one day, browsers might put up a blanket security warning for HTTP URLs instead of following redirects. Or they might try to be a little too clever with HTTPS upgrades. In particular, the automatic upgrade feature in modern browsers is based on several heuristics rather than explicit configuration like HSTS, so there's always a bit of room for breakage there. Fo…

> Or they might try to be a little too clever with HTTPS upgrades. They're not going to get any cleverer than they are now. In October we'll finally be done with heuristics or central databses of https-first websites used by the various browsers or the half a dozen of headers that you must dance around to get the upgrade to work securely and reliably. They will just default to https first. https://blog.google/securit…

Personally, if I were interpreting the bet, and that browser behavior had been changed before the day of the bet, I'd interpret that as failure, because the browser didn't show an HTML page, it showed a warning dialogue.

And in any case, at some point after browsers start doing that, I will be unsurprised if some further conditions prevail that provide reason for web servers to stop listening on http at all.

Re: The original URL for this prediction will no longer be available in 11 years (2011)

#65

Post by Someone »

andai wrote: post #30
CSMastermind wrote: post #18

It's worth noting that some prediction URLs, for instance: https://longbets.org/6/ are offline. The original long bet was whether or not computers could pass the turing test by 2029: https://longbets.org/1/ You'd think that LLMs fulfill this, but I do wonder if a clever human could still discern between them given their particularities. https://longbets.org/9/ is another interesting one depending on whether you think…

There was a paper a while ago, where they found a strategy for GPT beating humans on the Turing test 2/3rds of the time. They just prompted it to talk the way a 13 year old girl texts. (Also they prompted it to pretend not to know anything about anything.)

> where they found a strategy for GPT beating humans on the Turing test 2/3rds of the time.

IIRC, PARRY https://simulation-and-society.org/parry/ got there in 1972 by pretending to be a paranoid schizophrenic person

Re: The original URL for this prediction will no longer be available in 11 years (2011)

#66

Post by iansmith_hn »

fragmede wrote: post #17
mg wrote: post #14

It is actually pretty easy to keep alive URLs if there is a will to do so. Just have tests in place so you can't mess them up accidentally. And convert things that are not changing anymore to static html. One of my first web projects involved a music forum and I have been keeping the URLs alive for 24 years now: https://www.gnoosic.com/discussion/ I feel like I owe it to the people who participated to keep it online…

Well, and pay registrar and hosting fees for 100 years, and then just hope the hosting company doesn't fold in the interim after your passing. The problem isn't "can you make sure it stays up while you're alive", the problem is, after you're gone, you're no longer there to keep the flame alive and there are no guarantees anyone else picks up the torch.

Does this suggest a subscription(ish) business where you pay the hosting company for N years and then they ensure your website stays up and unchanged for N years after you die? Quality control issue?

Given how many things want me to pay a subscription while I'm alive, surely somebody will start charging me when I'm dead. It is the logical conclusion of SaaS. I wanted to create an acronym for this, but death as a service didn't seem like the best choice.

Re: The original URL for this prediction will no longer be available in 11 years (2011)

#67

Post by andai »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #39
andai wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The preferred term is meat proxy ;)

That depends on which side of the JS rendering bullshit you're sitting. If you're on the serving side, yes. But I do the same as GP, just on the receiving side. That is, reaching out for help to baby eldritch entity, because that's healthier for my mind than dealing directly with the unspeakable horrors that half the websites are today. The industry has lost its collective mind in pursue of profit and control, and th…

I like your funny words, magic man.

Re: The original URL for this prediction will no longer be available in 11 years (2011)

#68

Post by andai »

Someone wrote: post #65
andai wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a paper a while ago, where they found a strategy for GPT beating humans on the Turing test 2/3rds of the time. They just prompted it to talk the way a 13 year old girl texts. (Also they prompted it to pretend not to know anything about anything.)

> where they found a strategy for GPT beating humans on the Turing test 2/3rds of the time. IIRC, PARRY https://simulation-and-society.org/parry/ got there in 1972 by pretending to be a paranoid schizophrenic person

>while ELIZA has a comforting effect that many crave, PARRY often actively makes users uncomfortable and afraid

PARRY is my spirit animal.

> In empirical evaluations conducted during the 1970s, experienced psychiatrists proved unable to reliably distinguish PARRY's responses from those of actual patients diagnosed with paranoid disorders, achieving only 48 percent accuracy, a figure statistically indistinguishable from random guessing.

https://ai.miraheze.org/wiki/PARRY

Re: The original URL for this prediction will no longer be available in 11 years (2011)

#69

Post by bonoboTP »

ofalkaed wrote: post #52
CSMastermind wrote: post #18

It's worth noting that some prediction URLs, for instance: https://longbets.org/6/ are offline. The original long bet was whether or not computers could pass the turing test by 2029: https://longbets.org/1/ You'd think that LLMs fulfill this, but I do wonder if a clever human could still discern between them given their particularities. https://longbets.org/9/ is another interesting one depending on whether you think…

>You'd think that LLMs fulfill this, but I do wonder if a clever human could still discern between them given their particularities. While LLMs are very capable of appearing human in general conversation, the test is that they are trying to convince a human that they are human, which is not something that is in their training data and I suspect they would go about things in very odd ways from an actual person, especi…

I don't think any frontier lab tried to make an LLM optimized for the literal Turing test where the LLM is made to argue that it's human. This is not in their interest. They make their LLMs insist they aren't human, have no feelings and sentience etc etc.

So we don't actually know how good LLMs can be in this.

Re: The original URL for this prediction will no longer be available in 11 years (2011)

#70

Post by andai »

Someone wrote: post #65
andai wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a paper a while ago, where they found a strategy for GPT beating humans on the Turing test 2/3rds of the time. They just prompted it to talk the way a 13 year old girl texts. (Also they prompted it to pretend not to know anything about anything.)

> where they found a strategy for GPT beating humans on the Turing test 2/3rds of the time. IIRC, PARRY https://simulation-and-society.org/parry/ got there in 1972 by pretending to be a paranoid schizophrenic person

Also I found the source code!

https://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/project/ai-repository/ai/areas...

Post reply on HN