erelong

Is this truly the end?

Feels like a moment

is this just lying with statistics?

surely some abuse of the drug could lead to adverse reactions?

are they just arguing for specific doses to not have negative effects? (that would be true of a lot of things we consider harmful)

As others said it wasn't just AI but their excessive moderation

https://archive.ph/xo7RG

do you think there is a way to divert kids like this into some kind of useful programming / IT direction and if so what do you think would be the best way to handle this

(like a group that takes black hat hackers to white hat hacker projects?)

kids with like anti-social or aggressive tendencies plus maybe some tech "skillz"

more war on drugs slop / drivel as if no lessons were learned from alcohol Prohibition

Definitely not, but that's ok

I think you could make a high level brainstorm session / plan on paper of things to prompt and that this was valuable even before AI

and occasionally manually writing out the code could be useful as a mental exercise to keep coding skills sharp?

seems like the wrong thing to target for the good of the environment as this gets in the way of people's possible legitimate health needs

the internet is a series of (tubes?) overlapping circles

"small price to pay for Massive AI Gains"

I think one of the other comments gets in to it, but it's really either AI gets good enough so we can accelerate OSS development with agents, or it's not good enough and that will probably force a pull-back towards more manually created code

(and so no need to worry too much either way as the issue will sort itself out?)

I think of banter as saying something offensive but not really meaning it so the humor is in being "playfully offensive" or "offensive when you don't really mean to be offensive"

yes but no, can't we just ask AI to sufficiently shuffle our words or for algos to do so?

"boom", pseudoanonymity (spell?) restored?

meh it seems more like there's more of a multi-context more than ever rather than a uni-context

Oh, I don't actually know the difference if you want to explain it

The title says it's 27B grade running on a phone and what I was comparing it to in my mind was a model that runs at 35B grade that could presumably run on a phone "better"?

edit: I asked AI for the difference and understand a little better, thanks for the heads up to learn the difference between models... I think the thing was, although ornith was created for a specific agentic purpose, it was still outperforming a previous generalist model I had running locally (so in my mind I thought it was still a better local model) - I'd like to try bonsai out if I can figure out how to run it lol

I was trying Ornith 9B locally (it's up on Ollama) which claims:

Ornith-1.0-9B, which can be easily deployed on edge devices, matches or exceeds the performance of much larger models such as Gemma 4-31B and Qwen 3.6 35B.

https://deep-reinforce.com/ornith_1_0.html

Only tried it so much so far; it did a little better than Qwen 9B

imo no way

But this varies from person to person

Some of us overthink already and offloading to AI just enables us to overthink more in other directions than we would if we didn't have ai

people will just ask AI how to create an infinite scroll that complies with CA law

and the technology marches onward

I think from seeing articles like this a few times, that there's a lack of definition from people as what counts as "real reading" and about what materials "count as real reading"

(since I think probably people are reading these days more than ever - it just may be on forums like HN, social media, and AI output, etc.)

so if you just define that specifically then we could just promote it on social media, people reading these specific things, and then "boom" more people are "really reading"

(I presume people want to see more people reading "Great Books of Classic Literature" which is probably a great goal, things like Chaucer's "Canterbury Tales" or Dante's "The Divine Comedy", etc.)

"the sound of scared SAAS companies screeching in the distance"

Naw, I can see I think the case being made - a lot of people still do things they don't need to, well after they don't need to do them, so SAAS may have a place for a while

I think for the rest of us though, SAAS may want to "pivot" to something else...

"Esperanto for Clankers"

looking at the code itself is suboptimal and often pointless

yeah I was having a convo with AI about this recently

I was like, I recognize AI tools are useful, but I don't end up using them as much as I'd like to

and the conversation kind of went towards acknowledging how dramatic the shift has been from using search engines to get ideas about how to manually code, to just sharing ideas for other people to maybe implement in their own way using AI

So, there were all kinds of buzz phrases that popped up like about "prompts as source code" and "spec driven development" and "context engineering" which just kind of confirmed for me that I think some of my "slowdown" with coding with AI has been due to a shift from this manual coding with search engine assistance to sharing ideas and letting AI do the actual coding

Manual review akin to skimming while reading and then reading in depth specific passages that need "deeper focus" is probably something to consider keeping doing

a regulation on top of regulations... perhaps deregulating education so there is more competition might produce better results over the poor quality of education offered today for higher costs

...and there may be damaging side effects

while there are probably lots of accessible "natural" demetia remedies

that you can do without having to resort to experimental drugs that may cause more problems and cost more

Basically "the Industrial Revolution and its consequences..."

Interesting article, I guess it may come off as a reflection of being of a different mindset than an older style of open source software and culture?

I thought the idea was, software is created with an open source and open license to it - so people know what the software is, and are able to make copies of it freely, and so that becomes hard to monetize.

If you are trying to sell software and make it proprietary with closed source, it's not software you can trust (could contain literally any insecure code) so you avoid it and it would lack people using it (not saying this happens in practice, but I thought was the open source argument).

Hence you're saying, just create / pay for insecure proprietary closed source software that can't be shared and isn't intended to be shared.

The subscription model lends itself towards abuses: namely, you can use something temporarily, then lose access. The open source vision was about creating software that can be freely re-used indefinitely without a required subscription and shared without as much of restrictions.

So I think basically people object to this increased limitation of "indefinite reuses" which you can get with open source software that you "own", and maybe the proprietary closed source tendencies of these locked down subscriptions.

Now granted, some of the newer "spaces" we operate in may look a little differently, with lots of things needing or desiring constant updates and we recognize we only have so much time so a question comes up if we even want or need "indefinite reuse" or to even have open source software or to understand how the software works.

But, there might not even be disagreement here... if you just "donate" to an open source nonprofit project, that could still be framed as a "subscription". I think it's maybe not conventionally how we're referring to subscriptions, but I think I could see your case for reframing the subscription towards being something "good" or "ok".

There are open source monetization strategies, but if code tends towards being less able to be monetized, how can software projects be funded? I think in this "post-intellectual property" open source scenario I'm suggesting at, the funding might shift in other directions (maybe like from selling hardware or tangible physical goods).

But anyway, I guess we would just probably distinguish between "unwanted" and "desired" subscription practices: limited locked down subs versus unlimited maybe subscription-less or limited open source subs.

At least these were some thoughts this essay was generating in me.

Version Control Will Evolve for the Agent Boom

Isn't this the idea behind Yegg's "Beads"?

not justifying it but I imagine even pre-Flock there were false positives, I guess a question would be if the false positives are multiplying or if they would be better than the previous system of false positives

free sauna

free hot tub

free publicity and good will gathered

("free")