HN user
OSD !== Open Source. All OSD is Open Source, not all Open Source is OSD. You are free to disagree, but the OSI has chosen (more accurately forced to choose) very explicitly to only define and trademark OSD. There's really not much more to the conversation then that.
This is a really poor take, to try and put a firewall between mathematics and language, implying something that only has conceptual understanding root in language is incapable of reasoning in mathematical terms.
You're also correlating "mathematics" and "calculation". Who cares about calculation, as you say, we have calculators to do that.
Mathematics is all just logical reasoning and exploration using language, just a very specific, dense, concise, and low level language. But you can always take any mathematical formula and express it as "language" it will just take far more "symbols"
This might be the worse take on this entire comment section. And I'm not even an overly hyped vibe coder, just someone who understands mathematics
I think some of the distinction here is that the more recent "bare LLMs" have been more purpose built, augmented with "agent" specific RL, and in general more fine tuned for the requirements of "agents". Things such as specific reasoning capabilities, tool calling, etc.
These all make the "bare LLMs" better suited to be used within the "agent" harness.
I think the more accurate term would be "agentic LLMs" instead of calling them "agents" outright. As to why its the case now, probably just human laziness and colloquialisms.
You mean you told Claude a bunch of details and it built it for you?
Nowhere have I claimed that they didn't put work into this.
There's some mental gymnastics.
please counter the opinion that I gave
The reply your responding to did exactly that, and you just gave more snarky responses.
I think they may be jumping on the "shit on AI assisted project" bandwagon. I am by no means reaching for ai tools at every turn, but to suggest its plagiarized is laughable.
Don't worry about these trolls.
Thats a fair (no pun) question! The reason "source available" exists is to starkly seperate it from "open source", yet to your point, they certainly can be both. However it is reductive/pointless to say my code is "open source and source available" since of course the source is available if its open source.
This highlights my knee-jerk reaction to your initial post. My original definition I provided for Source Available was "[viewable but not OSD]". This is overly restrictive since can be both, but to assign any meaning at all Source Available it needs to be defined in relation to "Open Source", otherwise its meaningless.
I agree, it really isn't complicated :).
All code is shared "under someones own copyright and terms". Whether you use pre-existing words or not doesn't define if its open-source or source-available. I can write a license right now that I maintain the copyright, and written with my own terms that complies with the OSD. We happen to have a collection of existing licenses that have been vetted, but it isn't a exclusionary whitelist.
I'll reiterate, "source available" can only be defined as not OSD code that is viewable. Everything else is entirely open to implementation and interpretation.
This is the largest problem with the term. This is in stark contract to examples like "Fair Source" which has a legal definition like the OSD, and a entity behind it stewarding that definition [0], while being a subset of Source Available. All fair source is source available, not all source available is fair source.
Yet, fair source doesn't fall into your definition of source available.
[0] https://fair.io/
I'm going to respond here assuming you are being genuine and not facetious or sarcastic (even though I am hoping you were).
"Source available" doesn't in any way mean "you can sue anyone that uses your code for any reason...". The irony of highlighting the trickery of these terms then you yourself perpetuating wrong definitions is... amusing.
"Source available" is by definition ill-defined, in the sense that "open source" is defined. There is no trademark, stewarding body, or legal entity behind "Source available". It only exists in relation to OSI defined "open source".
Which is to say, it is defined as code that does not fit the "Open Source Definition (OSD)" yet its source code is viewable. Maybe its modifiable, maybe its free to use, but maybe its neither. Thats all anyone can factually attribute to the definition of "Source available". Nothing about "suing ... for any reason".
Again, hoping you were making your comment in good fun, otherwise it doesn't look too good for you.
Source (https://source.network)| USA/Canada/EU: REMOTE | Full-Time | https://source.network/careers At Source, we aim to revolutionize developer data management for the open web. Our mission is to simplify data handling for edge devices, local-first software, and distributed infrastructures, allowing developers to unleash their creativity and build world-changing tools that realize the open web’s full potential.
Our suite of new technologies work together to make it easy for developers to ship edge and local-first software. We empower developers to create software and devices that seamlessly communicate, offer granular data control, and secure data cryptographically to ensure trust. Join us in shaping the future of data management and the open web.
We’re growing fast and are looking to fill the below positions:
ENGINEERING
- Lead Edge AI Engineer - https://source.network/careers/lead-edge-ai-engineer
- Lead Technical Writer & Documentation Engineer - https://source.network/careers/lead-technical-writer--docume...
- Software Engineer, Backend (Database/Distributed Systems) - https://source.network/careers/software-engineer-backend-dat...
- Protocol Engineer (Distributed Systems) - https://source.network/careers/software-engineer-backend-dat...
OPS & GROWTH
- Chief of Staff - https://source.network/careers/chief-of-staff
- Head of Developer Relations - https://source.network/careers/head-of-developer-relations-r...
See all our open positions here: https://source.network/careers
Source (https://source.network)| USA/Canada/EU: REMOTE | Full-Time | https://source.network/careers At Source, we aim to revolutionize developer data management for the open web. Our mission is to simplify data handling for edge devices, local-first software, and distributed infrastructures, allowing developers to unleash their creativity and build world-changing tools that realize the open web’s full potential.
Our suite of new technologies work together to make it easy for developers to ship edge and local-first software. We empower developers to create software and devices that seamlessly communicate, offer granular data control, and secure data cryptographically to ensure trust. Join us in shaping the future of data management and the open web.
We’re growing fast and are looking to fill the below positions:
ENGINEERING
- Chief of Staff - https://source.network/careers/chief-of-staff
- Lead Edge AI Engineer - https://source.network/careers/lead-edge-ai-engineer
- Lead Technical Writer & Documentation Engineer - https://source.network/careers/lead-technical-writer--docume...
- Head of Developer Relations - https://source.network/careers/head-of-developer-relations-r...
- Senior Zero-Knowledge Engineer - https://source.network/careers/senior-zero-knowledge-enginee...
- Protocol Engineer (Distributed Systems) - https://source.network/careers/software-engineer-backend-dat...
- Software Engineer, Backend (Database/Distributed Systems) - https://source.network/careers/software-engineer-backend-dat...
See all our open positions here: https://source.network/careers
Would love to hear how this compares to another popular go based full text search engine (with a not too dissimilar name) https://github.com/blevesearch/bleve?
Source (https://source.network)| USA/Canada: REMOTE | Full-Time | https://source.network/careers At Source, we aim to revolutionize developer data management for the open web. Our mission is to simplify data handling for edge devices, local-first software, and distributed infrastructures, allowing developers to unleash their creativity and build world-changing tools that realize the open web’s full potential.
Our suite of new technologies work together to make it easy for developers to ship edge and local-first software. We empower developers to create software and devices that seamlessly communicate, offer granular data control, and secure data cryptographically to ensure trust. Join us in shaping the future of data management and the open web.
We’re growing fast and are looking to fill the below positions:
ENGINEERING
- Senior Zero-Knowledge Engineer - https://source.network/careers/senior-zero-knowledge-enginee...
- Head of Developer Relations - https://source.network/careers/head-of-developer-relations-r...
- Protocol Engineer (Distributed Systems) - https://source.network/careers/software-engineer-backend-dat...
- Software Engineer, Backend (Database/Distributed Systems) - https://source.network/careers/software-engineer-backend-dat...
See all our open positions here: https://source.network/careers
Source (https://source.network)| USA/Canada: REMOTE | Full-Time | https://careers.source.network
At Source, we aim to revolutionize developer data management for the open web. Our mission is to simplify data handling for edge devices, local-first software, and distributed infrastructures, allowing developers to unleash their creativity and build world-changing tools that realize the open web’s full potential.
Our suite of new technologies work together to make it easy for developers to ship edge and local-first software. We empower developers to create software and devices that seamlessly communicate, offer granular data control, and secure data cryptographically to ensure trust. Join us in shaping the future of data management and the open web.
We’re growing fast and are looking to fill the below positions:
ENGINEERING
-Protocol Engineer (Distributed Systems) - https://bit.ly/3WxBgRQ
-Software Engineer, Backend (Database) - https://bit.ly/4iiqOaZ
See all our open positions here: https://careers.source.network/
Can you describe the connection between the "VM" and the "MPC" implementation. The project is described as a VM for Multiparty computation, but (currently) doesn't do MPC? Implying its currently just a certain kind of VM?
Genuinely curious, fan of any tooling that makes writing MPC protocols easier.
hard no on the unnecessary login, apologies, looks at least surface level interesting
Aside from the MongoDB of it all, wheres the issue with adding "AI" here? As I understand it this is just vector types, similarity searches, embedding indexes, and RAG capabilities.
All of which are just data storage/retrieval mechanics and custom types. This isn't adding some omnipotent AI agent to run/manage/optimize your DB or otherwise turn it into some blackbox gizmo.
although they are treated as radioactive by most companies
Isn't this reason enough to not consider it an option?
To be fair I haven't kept up-to-date with blockchains, but I find it hard to believe that any existing blockchain could solve this. Transparency logs can.
Any insight as to why you think blockchains can't handle this?
The only fundemental difference between blockchains and transparency logs is the trust assumptions and censorship resistence. Its fairly easy to reason about a transparency log as a permissioned blockchain. Conversely, a blockchain could be seen as a permissionless transparency log.
Have you checked out Anytype[0]. Was recently posted/discussed here on HN a few days ago[1].
No affiliation, just interesting project that aligns with your description.
[0] https://anytype.io/ [1]:https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38794733
It is accurate, this is how BUSL works :). Its irrevocable, the licensed code MUST convert to a license that is compatible with the GPL within a maximum of 4 years. It can be any license, so long as its compatible, and it can of course be sooner than 4 years.
I agree with your sentiment, its escrowed open source, which might be a turn-off for some I guess.
Sorry but this is not the definition of "open source", I would argue there is only a conceptual and cultural definition of "open source". What you are linking to is The Open Source Initiative (OSI) Foundation's declaration called the "Open Source Definition".
They are a single organization, that have done a tremendous job at trying to come up with a global and shared legal framework to which people can license code under. They have gone so far to come up with a pretty good definition of "open source", but not the definition.
This would be equivalent to saying that "Freedom" is defined by the US Constitution or the Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms. It is not, those are both examples of a legal definition of freedom, but neither are the sole authority for the global and cultural concept of "Freedom"
This is a somewhat pedantic and useless comment. Of course definitions can change, but the notion of "open source" hasn't changed in any significant and notable fashion since it was first coined in the late 90s. Feel free to disprove me.
Finally, OSI doesn’t define the term. They just certify licenses that adhere to open source principles and ideas. The community defines the term. Everyone is free to make up new licenses. OSI just helps the community filter out noise by reviewing licenses that actually are open source.
This is exactly my point, the community defines the term. The OSI definition does a good job of making the legal aspect of (their vision for) "open source" explicit, but it also adds additional definitions beyond what the average layperson might consider "Open Source".
Take section 5 and 6 of the "Open Source Definition"[0]. It states you can't discriminate against "persons, groups, fields, or endeavors". So if I wrote some software, put a MIT license on it, with a single additional clause that says the CIA can not use this software. Magically, it is no longer "Open Source" according to the OSI, even though 99.9999% of people can freely use it under the MIT.
[0] https://opensource.org/osd
They have a definition, they even have a pretty good definition, but the OSI shouldn't be the definition. All OSI licenses are open source licenses, but not all open source licenses are OSI licenses. (All thumbs are fingers, not all fingers are thumbs).
But "Open Source" both as a term and idea pre-dates the OSI's formation. The general definition of "Open Source" shouldn't be universally defined by a single body.
The OSI has done a great job at introducing a legally ratified and globally recognized license format to help reduce uncertainty, but it is not, and has on several occasions been denied[0], the global authority on the definition of Open Source. They have a trademark and are the authority for "Open Source Initiative Approved License" (ie: "OSI License") specifically.
[0] https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p...
Love to see what this looks like if its available to look at somewhere (Github?). Sounds super interesting, even as a toy project
Probably want to check out https://www.kapa.ai/, no affiliation, just a fan.
To be pedantic, both git logs and blockchains are actually Merkle DAGs or Hash Graphs, whichever you prefer. All Merkle Trees are Merkle DAGs but not all Merkle DAGs are Merkle Trees.
You clearly missed that all web versions actually have to follow the Fibonacci sequence.
And I've already called dibs on Web8
I don't see any goalpost moving. PoW is not blockchain.
Blockchains are exactly 3 things
- A ledger of "things"
- Consensus to agree on "things"
- A state machine that that transitions based on "things"
PoW is how Bitcoin achieves consensus. The brute-force operations that "waste" energy is actually a highly robost leader election algorithm.
So sure, "PoW is not a blockchain" is technically accurate, but a useless statement on its own.
OP states there is nothing unique or special about blockchains, then notes a unique and special fundamental aspect that enables (some) blockchains.
I do find at least amusing to point out you started this thread with a comment that adamantly stated that "There's nothing unique or special about it [blockchains]"
Only to immediately follow it up by conceding your main point > "he PoW system used is one way to prevent Sybil attacks when distributing work among untrusted peers, and that's it. Novel, neat, but useless"
Ok, so you shifted the goal post from "there's nothing special about it" to "being novel and neat is insufficient for being 'special'". Whatever special means here.
The weirdest part is that your convictions (and concessions) are based on the Bitcoin whitepaper, which is quite literally the oldest part of modern day blockchains/cryptocurrencies.
Nakamoto style PoW consensus and the UTXO model bitcoin uses - never mind being very much novel and "special" - is the bedrock of the past 13 years of distributed systems and cryptographic research.
I'm more than happy to walk you through the landscape in question and the novel, neat, and useful things therein, but you seem quite content in your veil of ignorance. Feel free to prove me wrong.