Eufrat

I guess that works, it is always difficult to capture the cultural and linguistic melancholy of such poetry.

Are these AI-driven data centers actually getting built? I was reading about Kevin O’Leary’s initial proposal for his Utah data center and it’s just preposterous, it’s inconceivable anyone needs that much compute at any realistic demand level. The ask is so massively large that even the scaled down version is just absurd.

We also have the Stargate UK data center that the Starmer government trumpeted before it was exposed as a glorified PR stunt without any substance. [1]

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jul/04/openai-ap...

I get that and I can see an argument that they didn’t really put it as stable, but I suspect the reason it is not the stable version right now is from the massive pushback as other projects and companies started pulling support for Bun because of the loss of confidence rather than any other reason.

The real problem is they explained nothing and just caused a lot of mistrust. The lead developer at Bun working on this project does post here from time to time and I have never seen him answer any of this. I admire his enthusiasm, but this was badly handled mostly from Bun’s side which lead to a bunch of dogpiling.

When someone on another social media platform commented expressed some concern, his response was to ask him what the explicit bug he was talking about was and that he would generate a fix. That sound you hear is the woosh as the point flies by. And in general, this just feels like a consistent problem with Bun.

Some people, myself included, think that announcing a conversion from Rust to Zig as an experiment then jumping to putting it in the alpha train for public testing/consumption without any real explanation in the span of around 2 weeks is irresponsible and reckless.

Blogposts were promised, details were hinted, but no, it’s just full steam ahead because the AI worked so well. The converted unit tests all worked, all the synthetic tests are okay, so what are you complaining about?

At some point, it’s less about the technical questions and more about getting that pesky human buy-in.

IMHO, this is an actual good use of what sounds like a person guiding a model to do a mass conversion. Although, I wish the porting docs were a little wordsmithed by a human, the AI generated text style is grating.

The stakes are low, it’s mostly for fun and you can iterate on it. Compare this with Bun which was just like, “hey we converted everything to Bun to Rust from Zig, of course it works, what could possibly go wrong, I’ll totally write up a blogpost (that still doesn’t exist) explaining what we did, you can put this into your production environment soon!”

I think you’re conflating detection with interpretation.

What is the value of saying this when ChatGPT was released in 2022? There’s no way there’s enough data to make any meaningful extrapolation about anything.

It's something computers will be able to do strictly better.

I don’t think there’s any evidence that’s true.

Why should we not expect a computer vision model to outperform humans on reading medical images?

Humans can identify. A computer vision model can return a statistical value. Both can make errors, but these errors are orthogonal to how we work and what is being asked of them. I think a CV model can absolutely provide value as augmentation. Identifying possible misses or a different diagnosis worth considering, but that is not what is being asked of them here. The pitch by Altman and Amodei is not to say, “This tool that might cost $1,000/month can help increase the accuracy of your diagnoses by 10%,” instead it’s, “This tool can allow you to keep 10% of your workers to monitor it and you can fire the rest. Also, the workers carry all the liability.”

The human experts are literally just a trained biological neural network. In this domain they are not capable of anything a computer can't already do.

People need to stop making this baseless claim. Human beings are not stochastic computing devices, we are not neural networks. We don’t fully understand human cognition and intelligence. I have the highest confidence we will figure it out one day, though.

Yes, neural networks were based on a superficial view of the human brain, that’s it. For instance, it is biological impossible for the human brain to do backpropagation, which is kind of important for a modern neural net.

This really rubs me the wrong way because it's objectively false, but people keep bring it up because I think people want it to be true rather than accepting generative AI for what it is: a tool with a bunch of caveats.

I feel like the promise of these models is to help people make more informed decisions. Improving the knowledge economy and general understanding.

The problem is these are just statistical models at the end of the day, so you need to know something to be able to identify the errors. You can’t let them really be autonomous and you also can’t really have people turn into glorified approvers. If the machine is correct 89% of the time, you cannot make people responsible for that 11%. It’ll just cause automation fatigue.

tl;dr: the actual use cases of these LLM (or generative AI in general) is rather limited, so it is offensive how much hay has been given to them eating the entire capitalist system. They are not fit for purpose.

Some of this is just the nature of American culture. Acceptance/rejection of federal authority is often irrational and leads to this patchwork. For instance, replace this statement with a national gun registry and watch people flip out.

The policy of the United States is currently a roulette wheel suffering from dementia that believes that Siri is a Norwegian supermodel they can use to seed the future Herrenrasse.

This laissez-faire logic is insane, but I think it is telling that a lot of folks here seem to have this mindset and makes me empathize with increasingly nihilistic people.

People argue for less regulations until they are the ones eating crow.

Let’s not even talk about the feature. Copying the entire visual design itself with superficial tweaks is pretty brazen and, frankly, incredibly lazy.

I am agreeing with you, sorry if that wasn’t clear.

I was just expressing frustration that a lot of people seem to think this is imposing some kind of undue burden on them when I’ve always just thought of it as the cost of existing in society is to…have some empathy?

Textualism is a scam wrapped in academic regalia. It is implausible on its face and arguing that “we only have the text to go off of” sounds nice and is demonstrably not how the law has been parsed.

What communication other than the license could reasonably be provided?

Nobody encodes everything in text. No law can be fully represented in text. The law is a combination of many things including norms and customs at a moment in time. The law as written is a framework. This can be demonstrated pretty obviously in just how some laws are written intentionally vague because we have human beings to parse them for meaning and context. A legal/justice machine does not and will never exist as long as these are frameworks for human interaction. This is not a computable problem and attempting it to frame it as one is deeply harmful.

I have met a lot of EECS folks who think that the law is just a set of rules to be applied and that a consistent and fair decision will just “happen”. This is ridiculous and anyone who thinks this should be smacked with a copy of the Bluebook.

There is also kind of a spirit vs. letter of the law issue here. The intention and spirit in which this software is given out should and must inform how the law is interpreted. Arguing this isn't how the law works is just wrong. I stress this because it shows just how fuzzy the law really is. I think people want bright lines where they don't exist. I don't know what the obsession with this is, but it is unproductive.

I certainly understand that this desire to return to a more nuanced and more empathetic view of all of this has gradients, but I think I am just deeply saddened how any attempt to suggest that there were and should still be some implied cultural norms regarding expectations and the response from some folks really sounds like an angry Ayn Rand instead of a discussion about what that means. It’s just a blanket rejection for a lot of people here. Software is for people. The consumers are ultimately people. People are the only things that matter.

Like, you start a business and society—through the government and law has said—hey, you can’t refuse to serve people based on certain reasons. This is actively being attacked by some people with the same pathetic argument of, “You can’t tell me what to do. I hate X and it’s my free speech right to tell them to go pound sand. I never agreed to the civil rights acts!” It’s like the stupidest version of Ron Swanson.

Oak Park. Home to Frank Lloyd Wright’s original studio/home and multiple works designed by him? Birthplace and hometown of Ernest Hemingway?

A municipality comparable to Berkeley, California or New Rochelle, New York?

What?

I agree with you that a blanket statement of not talking to the police is ridiculous, but arguing that Oak Park is a good representation outside of affluent America is not to be taken seriously.

I still really don’t understand what is so entitled about asking for a level of base empathy and care from maintainers.

People now yell at you that their only obligation is whatever is spelled out in the license they attached to the code. I think this is the same place where the logic of Code = Law comes from. People who think that you can encode the legal/judicial system into a set of axioms. This is not how the law works nor is it how it is taught and asserting this is a fundamental misunderstanding of human systems. It is incredibly destructive when people start applying maths as ground rules for human interaction. People do not live in black/white. We live in grey.

I am certainly not old enough to have experienced it, but I would venture a guess that the reason the BSD/MIT licenses originally existed was so that the universities had a CYA clause. I think you can see this erosion from a group of people sharing software in academic and hobbyist circles into weird legal absolutism as software becomes more of a business. For instance, Bill Gates’ famous letter to hobbyists or the PKZIP fiasco.

We have no idea what these terms mean and Ed Zitron specifically points out there is no explanation for what they mean in the reviewed documents.

Given that, no, this question is still open.

Silicon Valley has always had a bit of a libertarian bent, but I really think a lot of people have spent a significant and successful effort at pushing it towards Objectivism.

Objectivism is a stupid, angry idea borne out of the atrocities of the Bolsheviks. It exists in a vacuum. Eddie Lampert named his yacht the Fountainhead which is amusing since, while I don’t question he has talent, he got millions in seed money to start his own fund from Richard Rainwater. Elon Musk is not some scrappy kid; the vast majority of founders are from comfortable and increasingly upper middle class families where they can tolerate the risk of failing with a reasonable safety margin and then delude themselves that they bootstrapped everything themselves.

Curtis Yarvin does not exist in a vacuum. These are awful people and the fact that we’ve allowed them to be taken seriously and control the conversation is…obscene.

When you ask it to give you a digest of current events or as a study aid how are you ensuring that what your reading is a valid representation of the source material? Has it never given you false information?

IMHO, the whole episode is just embarrassing. I have no doubt he’s just trying to do the right thing. You can disagree with the tactics, but the vitriol is outrageous. rsync is a gift to the world and we should be grateful and mindful of how much it has been quietly woven into the fabric of computing. rsync is taken for granted. This is not okay.

I volunteer and I don't tell people or believe they should be grateful that an event is happening because of the volunteers. I just don't find this logic compelling in the same way that you don't find my logic compelling either.

Thanks for chiming in. I appreciate that this is the position of you and a large chunk of folks, but I don’t think I’m ever going to fully understand it.

If you don’t mind me probing a little further, what is the motivation to work on it?

they can fork it

I get that, but I also think it is too pat a narrative at the same time. I think the success of the project is both a testament to the effort that you and the Homebrew team have put into it. It is also an example of just how much effort any project really takes; this stuff doesn’t set itself up nor do all the patching required to make sure things behave as well as they do.

I just cannot understand this logic, can you explain why there is no responsibility whatsoever on the part of a maintainer towards the users?

Selling a toaster has an implicit warranty of merchantability. Society expects that if you sell me something, it should have certain promises. Yes, there’s no monetary exchange here, the work is given gratis, but there’s still a relationship and an interaction here and I think it is clear some people, like myself, believe that there are implied expectations. Just because it is “free” doesn’t mean it allows one to have a seemingly psychopathic attitude on the matter. It doesn’t absolve people of societal obligations.

I read that article by Mike McQuaid and I don’t get the impression that, “Yes, project maintainers should be allowed to run projects as they see fit and they put up with a lot of drive-by insults and hostile users. You don’t understand how hard all of this is and I’m doing it for free.” I get, “I hate my users and you should be grateful that I give you anything.”

As a long-time open-source maintainer, I find all the second-guessing and armchair psychoanalysis here (not just in this comment, all over HN) about Tridge's motivations, state of mind, and so on incredibly off-putting.

I agree that the entire episode is obscene, but I am also unsure of what to do here either. On some level this is the same problem movie stars run into. I agree that guessing or waxing about the motivations of anyone is a nosy and overall unproductive exercise (yet paparazzi exist because of this very human behavior), but I also think that there is a modest duty owed to users to explain things.

Tridge doesn't owe anyone anything as far as rsync is concerned. Yet he is spending his time maintaining it, only to be attacked for his efforts.

I am reminded of this piece: https://mikemcquaid.com/open-source-maintainers-owe-you-noth...

Which, I empathize with, but I fundamentally disagree that maintainers owe users nothing. I will die on that hill. If you are getting to that point where you actively loathe working on the project, I agree you should be able to walk away. However, I strongly believe that when you create something for people to use that there’s an implicit social contract about how to go about doing certain things.

I suppose in a very extreme and intentionally histrionic example, having a project carry the MIT license, getting frustrated and then changing the project to delete the entire system is a crime. The average person and the courts don’t care if the license is “as-is”. There is a duty that is understood that you don’t do that and I think we need to make it clear what that duty is for OSS.

Ultimately, though, I think this is all symptomatic of the fact that the OSS model has gaps that the increase in security reports whether AI generated or not has exerted more pressure on. I have certainly been on the receiving end of a lot of frivolous security reports that were discarded because it was obvious that it was just someone with a security scanner wandering around the Internet. You still have to review that nonsense and it eats into your time. Doing this on your own time, without pay and having to listen to the peanut gallery is just infuriating.

Is any business built on top of rsync going to donate their money in a sustainable manner?

I think Tridge is simultaneously trying to be proactive and kinda giving too much credit to marketing. Anthropic has not been able to really give numbers or actual values on what Mythos can really do. It just waved Mythos in front of the public like a boogeyman screaming that AI is going to cause a security nightmare (and it has, but mostly through vibe coded trash from what I’ve noticed); I’m hard pressed to find their statement that they spent less than $20,000 to find a Kerberos bug in FreeBSD a compelling win without a lot more context and they seem disinclined to provide that data. I really do wonder what evidence they have provided to their approved partners, all of this smells…weird.

I honestly think the main problem is Tridge just failed at communicating any of this correctly and I don’t think the implication he gives that all of this was due to the urgency of the impending security apocalypse really holds water.

Why was all of this written straight to the master branch? Now that the release is out, why not better explain what the urgency of this release was? Why wasn’t he proactive in communicating this and instead let the mob make up their own story? I think a lot of people are inclined to give Tridge a lot of leeway due to the fact that he literally is the reason why rsync exists, but this was avoidable and I think the comment in his response post where he mentions that, “I’d rather be out sailing than working on rsync security issues, so I have reached for several AI tools to help with what needs to be done,” speaks volumes as to what is going on.

But this one can: https://github.com/RsyncProject/rsync/issues/905 was caused by https://github.com/RsyncProject/rsync/commit/4fa7156ccdb2ad3... and I find it pretty absurd.

I don’t think AI assisted code is bad, but I really question tridge’s approach here. His post in response to to the dogpiling isn’t good (https://medium.com/@tridge60/rsync-and-outrage-d9849599e5a0). I appreciate his sense of duty to maintain rsync, but I get the very strong vibe from his response that he really doesn’t want to do this anymore and the use of AI is a way to make it easier on himself. He goes through some pretty lame arguments (aren’t humans just stochastic parrots‽ We don’t know!) and confesses he’d much rather stay retired and be sailing most of the time.

I think his heart is in the right place, but this is no longer a labor of love and it shows. Also, I think another point is that, given the criticality of rsync to so many businesses maybe they could fund development and maintenance of it? What a novel idea.