Wild that anybody thinks simply being in the office makes employees work. I have a colleague who sits within 2m of me who keeps their (personal) phone on their desk all day. They literally prop it up against the bottom of their computer monitor. They're not even subtle about it.
They get distracted every 2-3 minutes and spend upwards or 2-3 hours on it. It distracts me when it vibrates 100+ times per day.
Boss walks in, phone is down.
Boss walks out, phone in hand.
Is it not likely that people are more motivated to collaborate, talk about their work, plan together, feel a sense of excitement about work, etc. when they are communing in person? The ol watercooler mindset or whatever.
I mean - there’s this popular topic of the issue of loneliness lately. People are less motivated to do things that would maybe normally bring them social joy and get them out of their own homes and bring them together with others in the flesh. You’d expect people to be motivated to do that kind of thing, maybe? But it’s hard. And it’s harder every day when there’s a zeitgeist of growing isolationism.
I certainly don’t think the inflexibility of a 5 day in person work week with a hellish, uncompensated commute is the answer to the loneliness issue, nor the lack of motivation to do good work. But maybe there is some middle ground that would serve as a kick in the pants of sorts, without making us all miserable little ants going to and fro once again, that could help people get back out there in a way that helps.
I mean, at least, it doesn’t seem like the metaverse or whatever else is filling that gap as the techno-seers foresaw… but maybe future generations will prove that to be more realistic than bringing people back out together in meatspace. Or maybe we just stoop deeper into this new reclusiveness without any real stand ins for grabbing lunch together at all.
Maybe if the office was not a hellscape? Not just the commute, the offices themselves.
I didn't work in a properly colocated team since 2017, and that was mostly by accident. The norm is zoom/teams calls, often taken from the desk (which is 3-4 in a row with rows densely packed) because there's never enough space for meeting rooms so it becomes norm to not give a fuck that nobody can concentrate because someone is talking loudly on a work meeting.
And the watercooler is either office politicking or discussing how much the place sucks
Exactly this, its great that the person next to me can stand and talk to someone 2 desks down, over my shoulder while I'm on a teams call with someone from the other side of the floor, as there are only 3 conference rooms, and managers have priority. If you want people back in the office, redesign the whole space to small working areas where people can actually focus. Open office environments are the worst office experience possible, but i guess it makes the C-suite feel powerful or something having all these people sitting outside their office.
Well yeah, and that's actually the point: if you don't like it, you're free to leave! Headcount reduction without severance payment and getting rid of an unmotivated employee, win-win! At least for federal employees they had the decency of spelling it out clearly: https://traumaawareamerica.org/2025/04/28/deliberate-strateg... - the rest of us have to keep listening to the "it's all for your best" BS...
Sure, if you feel lonely and want the company of your co-workers, you're free to come to the office as often as you want. It's being forced to come to the office 3/5/whatever days that is actually decreasing motivation...
...and being forced back to the office for first three and then five days (as Elon Musk said years ago, you can work from home all you want, you just have to work 40 hours per week in the office) is not really going to improve your motivation.
There are concerns besides spying if you really don't trust the source of an open model. One is that the training incorporates a bias (added data or data omission) that might not be immediately apparent but can affect you in a critical situation. Another is vendor lock-in, if you end up depending on specifics of the model that make it harder to swap later.
It goes for all models though if you are looking at the values argument that original commenter made -- western values are probably more aligned than authoritarian governments - even if you do have your concerns about western companies. At least thats my read on the situation.
yeah, but try to convince a board or legal about it for a company that is not software first, for that they have to understand how it works. we have "chinese" AI blocked at work, even through i use self hosted models for myself at home hacking on my own stuff.
Good luck convincing others of this. I know it's true, you know it's true, but I've met plenty of otherwise reasonable people who just wouldn't listen to any arguments, they already knew better.
It's theoretically possible that your model will work OK except for code generation for security-relevant applications it will introduce subtle pre-designed bugs. Or if used for screening CVs it will prioritize PRC agents through some keyword in hobbies. Or it could promise a bribe to an office worker when asked about some critical infastructure :)
Sending data back could be as simple as responding with embedded image urls that reference external server.
You are totally right EU commissioner, Http://chinese.imgdb.com/password/to/eu/grid/is/swordfish/funnycat.png
Of course theoretically lots of things are possible with probabilistic systems. There is no difference with open source, openweight, chinese, french or american llms. You dont give unfettered web access to any models (locally served or otherwise) that can consume critical company data. The risk is unacceptable, even if the models are from trusted providers. If you use markdown to see formatted text that may contain critical data and your reader connects to the web, you have a serious security hole, unrelated to the risks of the LLM.
Of course, you want to limit that with training and proper procedures. But one of the obvious precautions is to use a service designed and controlled by a trusted partner.
Having the local LLM process sensitive data is a desirable usecase and more trustworthy than using a “trusted partner” [0]. As long as your LLM tooling does not exit your own premises, you can be technically safe. But yes, dont then click at random links. Maybe it is generally safer to not trust the origin of the local LLM, because it reduces the chance of mistakes of this type ;-)
[0] Trust is a complicated concept and I took poetic license to be brief. It is hard to verify the full tooling pipeline, and it would be great if indeed there existed mathematically verifiable “trusted partners”. A large company with enough paranoia can bring the expertise in house. A startup will rely on common public tooling and their own security reviews. I dont think it is wise to share the deepest darkest secrets with ourside entities, because the potential liability could destroy a company, whereas a local system, disconnected from the web, is technically within the circle of trust. Think of a finance company with a long term strategy that hasnt unfolded yet, a hardware company designing new chips, a pharma company and their lead molecules prior to patent submission, any company that has found the secret sauce to succeed where others failed—-none of these should be using trusted partners in favor of local LLM from untrusted origins IMHO. Perhaps the best of both worlds is to locally deploy models from trusted origins and have the ability to finetune their weights, but the practical processing gap between current chinese and non-chinese models is notable.
Maybe it can not spy on you but models can be totally (e.g. politically) biased depending on the country of origin. Try to ask european-, us- or china-trained models about "Tiananmen Massacre" and compare the answers. Or consider Trump's recent decisions to get rid of "woke" AI models.
Classic problem: "Who do you love more: mum or dad?" ;) Surely it's naive thinking but as the EU citizen I feel like I've got a little more influence on "European censorship" than on any other. I suppose that ASML feels the same way
Exactly. AR is still extremely early days, limited by hardware and software. I have no doubt that it has a future, there are just some impediments that have yet to be remedied (but I have no doubt that they will)
Wait, I absolutely would download a car if I could... or food... or clothing... I'd download the shit out of physical goods if the technology existed. Who wouldn't? You could solve scarcity. If we had Star Trek Replicators, we'd be living in a literal utopia.
> it was originally “You wouldn’t steal a car”, which I’d argue is true for most people.
Sure, but it's only true if you stretch the definition of what's occuring. If we stretched it in the other way, in that "stealing" a car in fact left the perfectly fine original right where you found it, the vast majority wouldnt think twice.
So long as you’ve paid for it before… maybe not. In many jurisdictions you are entitled to a backup. The fact that you have to pirate it… might be a gray area.
I could copy A New Hope once for every atom in the universe, and no money is lost and the original continues to exist.
Theft is moving stuff. You can't move software or digital assets, you can only copy them.
If I committed a burglary and instead of taking your TV I go to Walmart and buy a copy, then that's not burglary. You certainly wouldn't report me to the police.
I'm not concerned about my files being leaked because that's stealing. I'm concerned because they hold sensitive information that can be used for actual stealing, like for example with money.
Malware isn't bad because it's stealing. That's stupid. I know you know it's stupid, so I don't know why you said it.
Everything comes down to world population, which has quadrupled in a century, making the previously-sustainable now unsustainable.
But even many of the climate catastrophists can't get away from the mentality of 'we still need growth at any cost'. And 'growth' is most easily obtained by creating more consumers and more workers.
HN Bio: FinTech + Space + B2C angel & seed investor. Jackson Hole local; frequently in New York and the Bay Area.
Yeah, I can see why degrowth looks extreme to you. It must be rather frightening to lose your sense of control, comfort, and purpose in an unsustainable path.
To me personally? It’s fine. I work fewer hours than I did a decade ago, and generally travel and consume less than I did then too.
The wealthy can do with degrowth fine since degrowth implies deflation. The wealthy were doing fine before the agricultural revolution, too, for example.
Whether it will happen "naturally" because of climate catastrophes and war, or whether we will somehow understand this and do something before it's too late, I can 100% assure you that the world economy in 2100 will be smaller than today.
> I can 100% assure you that the world economy in 2100 will be smaller than today.
I can't assure you that the moon or the planet Mercury will exist in 2100, because 75 years is much too far ahead to forecast if we do or don't get e.g. von Neumann replicators by 2040 years and spend the next 60 using them to disassemble either or both into a Dyson swarm.
Is it? Even the most simple person should understand that a closed system with finite resources won’t sustain infinite growth. Even if it isn’t us, there will be a last generation that enjoys growth as the motor of wealth. At some point, resources will deplete and the standard of living will decrease as a consequence. This is logically inevitable. Everyone just pretends this can go on and on without stopping, but that’s wrong.
> Even the most simple person should understand that a closed system with finite resources won’t sustain infinite growth
As you say, this is simple.
Growth doesn’t require increasing use of finite resources. A more-productive widget can (and generally is) less material intensive than its predecessor. The material and even energy intensity of GDP has been falling in the developed world for decades. Value is subjective; its substrate isn’t finite. A world of artists producing digital works could be incredibly materially unintensice, but still feature growth, as an absurd example.
Even that doesn't work as "infinite": eventually you reach atoms and bits and thermodynamic limits, the maximum complexity of our world is still finite.
And sure, there's room for now, but 3%-year-on-year growth halves the remaining gap to whichever limit is critical every 24 years. I'm not at all clear how close e.g. current computer tech is to the Landauer limit, but it is definitely still developing much faster than 3%-y.o.y.
For truly infinite growth, we'd have to find a way to make mass and dark energy in balanced quantities — that would allow us to have not only arbitrarily more actual stuff, but also make sure it doesn't then collapse into a black hole.
When we look at the places that have experienced degrowth in this country such as the midwestern cities, it is hard to argue today that the effects were truly all that bad. They still have all the services, institutions, and plenty of the entertainment options you'd expect. Major hospitals and universities. They aren't full of derelict homes either, those have been all more or less razed by now.
The biggest benefit is far more people can actually afford a life of property ownership in these cities. Look at what 250k buys you in these places vs the places that didn't experience a degrowth period. We are talking a complete 4 bedroom home outright vs a 10% down payment on a comparable home.
This might seem perverse why it could be beneficial to experience degrowth. But the answer to that is simple: no where actually accommodates growth sufficiently to keep costs from going out of control. So a degrowth period really means prices are no longer being significantly influenced by an ever incoming class of high income earners, but are more in line with the actual median incomes found in the area.
Look at the map in this linked article (1). Seems like southern states are the ones getting most subsidy. Midwest for the most part relatively lower on the spectrum.
And what is even the subsidy? Interstate road works? Hardly matters to your daily life. The other subsidies are probably things like welfare benefits or medicaid, which might be a significant thing in your daily life if you qualify but if you don't are also irrelevant.
Lower property prices on the other hand lift all boats. Renters benefit. Homeowners benefit. Corporations benefit. At every income level in the market.
I really don't think subsidy is a factor in keeping things cheap in terms of cost of living. I think it is pretty solely due to the relationship between the size and rate of growth of the local high income demographic and housing inventory. For example it is even cheaper to live in Mexico due to this relationship, and there is probably a lot less subsidy going on there.
> Interstate road works? Hardly matters to your daily life
Sure does if you want trucked vegetables in the winter!
> think it is pretty solely due to the relationship between the size and rate of growth of the local high income demographic and housing inventory
The American housing market is broken. You are absolutely correct in that shrinking Rust Belt cities sidestep this problem by being in the rare position of housing surplus.
What I’m challenging is the notion that life in those cities would be as nice as it is if the entire country copied their population and economic contraction.
> This is nonsense. The consumptive, energy and material intensity of GDP, as well as GDP/capita, have varied greatly across time and countries.
It's not nonsense. In overwhelming majority of cases GDP is tied to energy consumption. We have not yet learned how to decouple it.
With renewables, there is faint hope, but the transition is slower than we would ideally like. It also remains to be seen what % can be decoupled by pure solar and wind (hydro is already tapped out, mostly).
> Degrowth is an extremist dead end. If an environmental movement falls for it, it should be ignored.
> It also remains to be seen what % can be decoupled by pure solar and wind
That's entirely dependent what % of the planet we feel like tiling in PV; wind is ultimately solar powered, and there's more places we can usefully put PV than wind anyway.
Environmentalists will be Very Unhappy if we tile the Sahara with something as close to black as PV is; but that location alone (we have more deserts), using middling quality PV (20%, we have stuff more than twice that good), and the current global average capacity factor (13%, but it's a good latitude and could plausibly get 23%), would still be 11.8 times current global primary energy demand, which itself is 6-7 times current global electricity demand.
> hydro is already tapped out
As a source, yes; as storage, no. I only mention this because it's very easy to mix them up.
