HN user

BodyCulture

134 karma
Posts5
Comments120
View on HN

Most important piece of information is in the linked Frontiers article:

   However, the overall capability of the chatbot to fully meet user needs received a lower average score (3.1/5.0), highlighting the need for further improvements.
Also there is still the problem of hallucinations, as we see in the „Evaluation“ paragraph:
   Live traffic evaluations are essential for monitoring system behavior, identifying potential issues like hallucinations in production, and understanding performance on diverse live queries.
This are quite devastating results. This is a system for scientific research on medicines and mediocrity and hallucinations will kill people.

Would be interesting to know how much money was flushed down the toilet with these experts.

This is not a problem at all as most Apple computers come with plenty of RAM and lots of disk space! We are so lucky that Apple engineers always think so differently into the future!

This is not a question of ideology or personal beliefs. It’s just a matter of fact that AI systems, especially LLMs, are not capable of producing reliable results.

This is a fundamental issue and for many uses we still need the old school way of computing that produces reliable results. It doesn’t happen accidentally, you know, a lot of resources went into this. AI just isn’t there yet and probably won’t be there anytime soon, no matter how much compute we throw at it.

From my pov and after using AI a lot to better understand its usefulness I see this discussion as totally misleading and irrelevant.

The elephant in the room is that even the best frontier models still produce errors.

This is a fundamental issue and should be discussed instead of some esoteric pseudo-scientific nonsense.

If the current systems can not produce reliable results they are useless. The promise of actual usefulness needs to be fulfilled in a very near future.

Is your comment referring to this project specifically?

Because the docs say:

  PgQue avoids that whole class of problems. It uses snapshot-based batching and TRUNCATE-based table rotation instead of per-row deletion.

Would be great if you could specify if you had problems with the exact implementation linked by op or if you did write about a different thing, thanks!
State of Kdenlive 3 months ago

Be careful with any serious project, this software most certainly will crash and destroy your work. It crashes since many years and developers do not seem to care or are not able to understand how important stability for media creation software really is. Especially small and independent artists should absolutely avoid any software that introduces additional risk of project failure as one such crash scenario at an advanced project state has a high potential of total destruction.

Choose wisely! Resolve is available for very little money and not only a much safer choice, but you will also learn to use an industry standard tool and might be able to monetise that skill one day.

Kdenlive is a hobbiest project and is probably still ok for occasionally splitting a downloaded YouTube video or converting your OBS recordings, but never should you remotely think about using it for a project where you need to rely on your tools.

The developers are not warning you enough, instead still trying to market this software as kind of a serious competitor to pro software, so I do that as a service for the aspiring video editor, taking your downvotes proudly as the price honest people have to pay.

Yes, obviously I write from experience.

Distribution of the content as static html or in any other format is a very tiny aspect of managing content and mostly a solved problem for any CMS nowadays. Focusing on that minimal aspect seems grotesque as there are much bigger challenges in making potentially large amounts of content actually manageable by a potentially very heterogeneous group of content creators with varying skills, responsibilities and relationships.

How many people do the security code review with this process? How do they avoid piling dozens of well hidden holes when you not use a library that is publicly available and seen by thousands of eyes?

Isn’t the best argument for open source code that it has so many people, most companies can not afford such a global quality assurance.

How well tested is this in combination with encryption?

Is the ZFS team handling encryption as a first class priority at all?

ZFS on Linux inherited a lot of fame from ZFS on Solaris, but everyone using it in production should study the issue tracker very well for a realistic impression of the situation.

You probably don’t realise how important encryption is.

It’s still not supported by Proxmox, yes, you can do it yourself somehow but you are alone then and miss features and people report problems with double or triple file system layers.

I do not understand how they have not encryption out of the box, this seems to be a problem.

Can you please give some more details about the pressure methods in mastodon you are writing about, this is very interesting and important.

Is there any systematic study going on about the mechanism of censorship in the fediverse?

Unfortunately until this day Proxmox doesn’t support full disk encryption oob, despite using the word „Enterprise“ in the first paragraph of their website. Yes, you can go your own way and install on an encrypted Debian, but you will miss important features and are on your own. It all comes down to ZFS not treating FDE as a first class citizen.

Very sad state of affairs.