byteknight

Never thought about it from that perspective, but I think you're right. It is by design, not deceptive intent, just the infinite monkeys theorem where we've replaced randomness with pattern matching trained on massive datasets.

May be helpful for others. Fully packaged version

https://github.com/IAmStoxe/wirehole

Seems similar to the problem encountered when making the stupid idea PyNQ:

https://github.com/IAmStoxe/PyNQ

Isn't that specific to pictures?

Encryption is defined as "the process of converting information or data into a code, especially to prevent unauthorized access."

What you describe is the same thing just not cryptographic.

Are you doing roleplay?

Seems so easy! You only need the entire world even tangentially related to video to rely solely on your project for a task and you too can have all the developers you need to work on performance!

"Just ask AI" is a phrase you will hear around enterprises now. You less often hear "Google it". You hear "ChatGPT it".

Not sure how that fits. Do you produce good results every time, first try? Didn't think so.

I think you replied in the wrong place, bud. All the best.

EDIT - I see now. sorry.

For all intents and purposes of the public. AI == LLM. End of story. Doesn't matter what developers say.

As an American, I obviously can get behind it, but I can easily see how a declared goal of superiority of others would rub those others the wrong way (and possibly prevent their contribution)

[Insert xkcd new standard image here]

I have to disagree. Anyone that says LLMs do not qualify as AI are the same people who will continue to move the goal posts for AGI. "Well it doesn't do this!". No one here is trying to replicate a human brain or condition in its entirety. They just want to replicate the thinking ability of one. LLMs represent the closest parallel we have experienced thus far to that goal. Saying that LLMs are not AI feel disingenuous at best and entirely purposely dishonest at the worst (perhaps perceived as staving off the impending demise of a profession).

The sooner people stop worrying about a label for what you feel fits LLMs best, the sooner they can find the things they (LLMs) absolutely excel at and improve their (the user's) workflows.

Stop fighting the future. Its not replacing right now. Later? Maybe. But right now the developers and users fully embracing it are experiencing productivity boosts unseen previously.

Language is what people use it as.

While it is totally nonsensical, as as suggestion as a business practice, I will indulge in the idea as if you are being genuine.

You cannot give a gender more money to do the same job with the criteria being a specific gender. That is blatantly illegal.

But in reality, would much more consistently be automated by a single playwright script.

He rewrote history to hide it?

He admits it here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44516104

Gives a whole new meaning to its always DNS.

Regardless no one can make you buy anything

No, zero click requires no interaction from the user. For a hypothetical example simply having a phone on a cellular network and being susceptible to base-band attacks. No interaction needed, just existing.

It bypasses a lot of the checks they do on the initial site when submitting to ad networks. It also allows custom redirections based on user agent, potential ip location, etc. Common in phishing.

TTS is a very common initialism for Text-to-Speech going back to at least the 90s.

I have to agree with you. Anything that requires an initiation (a chat in this case) by the user is inherently not "zero-click".

Amen.

An optimist I see.

On what planet is JS better than TS. You ever work with JS?

Get off my lawn is alive and well it seems

How on earth does buying Wiz force other developers to move? I think the tinfoil is too tight.

It didn't stop. What are you referring to?

I mean the near-impossible odds weren't enough to dissuade them, I doubt some more statistics will do it.

I appreciate the attempt but the reasoning of "it requires maintenance" is entirely moot. You have to do this regardless. Its just whether or not you publish it open-source. You are still saying, internally, this is good enough for customers, when you push it out.

This is a (very) thinly veiled attempt at a closed garden of sorts, IMHO. Its a "clean" excuse for not giving away the milk for free, but it falls short on actual reasoning.

You can only hold computers accountable if you can guarantee no outside modification. We still haven't ever successfully had a system that's not "pop-able" that I am aware of.