I think that many people are against toxic pesticides in food too, or meat that was inhumanely slaughtered, but there are few signals in the packaging to tell how things are made (besides labels that are dubiously trustworthy). So people might be against everything LLMs represents (bad for local and global environment, made with slave-labour, made by stealing material, removing jobs), without being able to tell something is LLM-generated. However, when they can tell, the gut reaction is disgust and the brand takes a big hit. I know when I notice something as LLM-generated, which I know I don't always do, I'm immediately disgusted by it and avoid it if I can.
The whole blog post is also taking a stance. What is criticized is the specific stance taken by Codeberg. TFA seems to state that Codeberg should allow projects of all kinds to be hosted on their service (though apparently artificially limiting their resources would be alright).
> most 'modern' UI tools adhered to standards defined by the Amiga team for cmdline usage and scripting.
One minor example of the usability was that the ReadArgs() call was fairly extensively used within a year or two after it was introduced and meant that the "?" command line option for help worked "everywhere" and would give a machine parseable, semi-typed options list (annotations like "/T" for toggle, "/N" for number etc.)
> But I can’t imagine it happening nationwide. Maybe cities can create their own public options, say a flat 3% income tax and you get health insurance.
You can get healthcare outside of employers and it's incredibly expensive. The cost of private healthcare (either employer sponsored or not) is what is responsible for what the article is talking about, it's certainly not just employer provided plans.
You never run a git blame or git bisect to find out when and under which circumstances a regression or bug was introduced? That might work for a while on a personal project, but is essential in a team project.
Retail investors shouldn’t be investing in individual stocks outside of industries they understand well. Following GAAP is the definition of not hiding the obligations.
And even he learned by the end the only real satisfaction is in helping others.
"Well, I guess if a person never quit when the going got tough, they wouldn't have anything to regret for the rest of their life. But good luck to you Peter. I'm sure this decision won't haunt you forever!"
Pal, doom marketing has been going on since before the release of ChatGPT. It's your own fault if you can't contemplate the possibility of a CEO telling lies that benefit their bottom line.
The first instance I remember seeing it was Elon Musk's first Joe Rogan appearance when he said how "scared" he was of his self-driving cars destroying the trucking industry (practically salivating as he said it). His stock has had self-driving cars priced in for eight years now, even though they still don't have them and Waymo exists!
That “lazy people” getting something they didn’t absolutely earn is a core right wing narrative that has been very successfully propagandized for decades. People are still going to need work to pay for everything else. No one is going to stop working once the crushing weight of medical debt is lifted. It’s easy to debunk but I don’t see much effort going into this right now.
[Background: I am Dove's husband, and remember the incident described]
What actually happened was the professor posed the question in class as an open research question, which he regularly did, with no particular expectation that any students would work on it or make meaningful progress. My wife happened to sit down in her office and come up with a counterexample, which she wrote on paper and left in the professor's physical mailbox on campus fairly late in the evening. He had almost certainly already left campus for the weekend by that time. This wasn't a case of some sort of arrogance or lack of wisdom, just a case of non-instantaneous asynchronous analog communication methods.
This particular professor was extremely good at letting others contribute. As soon as the contribution actually reached him, he assessed it and used it.
They are thieves the same way Anthropic or OpenAI are thieves. Either it’s fair use to learn from this data or not.
If what Anthropic/OpenAi did for training is theft then the Chinese models also are a form of theft. If they didn’t steal then I don’t think the Chinese firms did either.
Many newspapers in the 90's had their whole classified sections automated using custom AppleScript workflows, it was one of the big things that kept publishers on the Mac instead of Windows, since Microsoft didn't have anything to compete (OLE/VBA was a joke for these things)
Sure, but you can still use a Titan T3 or recent Yubikey model on an iPhone. If I had the threat model to justify it, I would not set up the passkey in Apple's infrastructure.
It is too bad they ignore that though. That's really disappointing.
I can only speak to my own experiences with salaried work. I'll also preface that I don't like healthcare being tied to employment.
All the job interviews that went to the point of discussing compensation, healthcare benefits were almost always included when negotiating what actual compensation would be. A difference of them covering several hundred dollars a month in premiums and them matching some % of HSA contributions is several thousand dollars a year in compensation differences. When multiple job offers are pretty close, that can make a difference.
Also, the few times employers have offered healthcare concierge as a benefit it was definitely mentioned in the overall compensation package.
The tools will never be perfectly reliable. It’s good that people like you are aware that it’s a statistical tool, not a perfect oracle.
For student work I would think it’s reasonable to look for patterns across each student’s work. A single Pangram positive across 10 assignments shouldn’t be enough to bring suspicion upon a student, but when 8 out of 10 of someone’s assignments are coming up as AI it’s time to talk.
The trend I’m hearing from my teacher friends is that students are generating AI papers and then putting them into tools like ZeroGPT and Pangram before submission. They do what you did: Remove sections, rewrite things, and make adjustments until the AI score goes down enough.
I heard that one classroom had developed a trick of adding spelling mistakes to ChatGPT output to try to make it look human written. So the teacher was getting pure AI slop but every paragraph had a couple typos inserted.
As for the 3 bullet points: That was a huge tell for one of the recent popular models. Almost all writing output would get sections of plus or minus 3 bullet points in a certain style. The newer frontier models do it less but that was a big LLM pattern for a while. Unfortunate for anyone who liked to write with 3 bullet points commonly. They’re feeling the pain of people who were emdash enjoyers before 2023
NVidia makes up 7.5% of the SP500. If it lost 50%, it would be a 3% loss for the index. The concentration is bad, but it would not cause a drop of 50% retirement funds by itself. If you take an all world index, it's even less.
Still, if NVidia lost 50% of their market share, we would probably see a big collapse of the stock market.
EDIT: to note, the top ten companies in SP500 make up an unprecedented concentration but they're not "mostly AI".
The longer the US AI strategy continues to be to bet on openai/anthropic the bigger it will be the US economy impact. The US bounced back from the dotcom crash and the 2008 crash, it does not mean it will bounce back after an AI crash.
I think that's precisely what the previous commenter is saying. Sit on the side lines, and let other people bloody themselves up.
Similar in a way to dot com. It's not to say ML won't have practical application in the future, but the likelihood that it will have specifically this form is low and worth waiting until the dust settles and a more commonly accepted utility presents itself.
If AI/ML were monstrously useful in its current form the companies pushing it would not need to be hawking products; people would be bashing their doors down. I think that's why in areas where it's more directly applied to a known problem set (like Pharma research, and I'm hoping someone with Pharma expertise can pipe up here) there has been more natural pickup.
Coming from trading and markets, ML has been a part of the mix in quantitative strategies for...well, nearly 20 years (by definition I suppose). Spaces with obvious utility will see rapid adoption. Worth waiting that out, honestly.
I do think the author is right that the Codeberg post was wrong to assert that "community" is a measure of the legitimacy of a FOSS project
A massive amount of technology runs on essentially single-contributor projects with pretty much no "community": xz, core-js, GnuPG, NTPd, OpenSSL, cURL
They didn't need to make that implication or alienate solo devs in order to drive home their point
I asked Opus 4.8 to critique my algebra notes (these are definitely not masters level- just undergrad second year). It hallucinated an error it claimed I made in the notes and then put in a correction I didn't need because what I had written was correct.
What I said in my notes was:
Notice that a cyclic group is a degenerate (in the sense of "smallest
non-trivial") case of a finitely generated group where the generating set is
a singleton.
It left-off the "non-trivial" and said that what I said was this was the smallest case of a finitely-generated group which is incorrect because it excludes the trivial group.
