joshuamorton

I don't disagree. I'm not sure why that's a relevant reply though.

If you think that the addition of a less creative process (model creation) to a more creative corpus ("art") is problematic, then it follows that you should think the addition of a less creative process (distillation) to a more creative corpus (a model) is also problematic.

So, I'm not the person you were responding to. I'd like you to take a moment and suggest where anyone in the thread you're replying to, either me or Remus, has said anything that suggests disagreement with the statement

There is an even higher level of creativity in creating books, songs and all sorts of art used in model training though.

He claimed there was more creativity in model training than in model distillation. That makes no claim about the relationship between the creativity in model creation and art. Why are you continuing to attack a claim that was never made, after a sub thread very explicitly clarifying that that claim was not made?

I don't think that's what it's saying at all. It's saying that there's a level of creativity in model creation that isn't present in distillation.

I guess it sort of helps if the threat model is complete remote code execution inside the victims brain because you got them to export their keys to you, but it seems more useful for websites and governments whitelisting what hardware and software they deem acceptable.

Reminder that Facebook has warnings and prevention mechanisms to avoid users pasting malicious JavaScript into the console on Facebook.com (which would exfiltrate session cookies).

Preventing users from accessing these keys directly makes sense!

The point of passkeys is that you don't need to. Unlike passwords, your session cannot be hijacked because the thing that you give your fingerprint cryptographically verified the requester.

Of course when you are the creator of Zig, that may feel quite unfair and you should highlight it.

Then highlight that, don't repeatedly insult someone. If Andrew thinks the same kind of ai-assisted improvement would be possible in Zig, and that avoiding the kinds of errors migrating to rust achieved would be possible in Zig, he should demonstrate it. And I don't necessarily mean rewriting all of Bun in "better-zig", but like, if you're going to say "this project is bad because it is badly maintained, not because the language has limitations" then demonstrate something to that effect.

The only technical detail I recall from Andrew's post is that zig has faster compile times, which may well be true but what do I care?

Python was being used as a teaching language at flagship universities in the mid 2000s.

It should be noted that

1. Proto2 isn't actually deprecated or anything and is still widely used and supported

2. https://protobuf.dev/editions/overview/ replace and improve on the versioning concept and basically entirely remove the issue of versioning since versions and features can be incrementally enabled on a per-file and per-field basis.

aaand I guess 3: protobuf is absolutely critical to Google's profit.

This is exceedingly easy to explain: demand is way too high, and the pro/max plans are loss leaders. I've paid a total of $20 and in 10 days, my cost, according to Claude code's cost tracker is like $400, which actually doesn't include all the use I've done.

Which is to say, if I continue my current usage over the month, I'll be getting $1000 of Claude for $20. It's difficult to be mad at someone selling me a $20 for two quarters, even if they're putting a bunch of restrictions on how and when I can do that.

There are edge cases where this fails, but `def parse(s): return json.loads('['+re.sub('([")])\s*(["(])','\g<1>,\g<2>',re.sub('[^()\s]+','"\g<0>"',s)).replace('(','[').replace(')',']')+']')` is a surprisingly robust lisp parser.

This, does exist though: https://share.google/i89jxAZzBzJJBpOyR. Like I know someone who answers phones are a salon and gets annoyed when people use this thing.

I gave the example of Apple and Google for a good reason. Because these big companies are selling products that don't even exist yet.

I guess I'm curious what you mean by this, I don't particularly see either of those companies doing this, certainly not in the way this article describes, and not really in any way that's impacted substantially by AI.

What "product that doesn't exist" is Apple selling? Google? Who is paying for it?

They'll replace the battery only "in eligible locations and while battery supplies last.

And if you aren't in an eligible location they'll pay you cash or give you a discount on a new phone. I'm really unclear what seems so terrible here.

I do most of my development on a MacBook air and a Chromebook. The ~only thing I do from my local machine is ssh into a beefy workstation and use chrome.

I mean I guess anything is possible, but the Pixel 6 and 7 also are receiving 5+ years of updates, and those sure seem real so far.

Yes, they've since more than doubled the support lifetimes to seven years.

aren't motivated to do crime due to suffering

Good thing I never said that!

Oh, and the only solution is more welfare

Nor that!

I said that for many people crime is a rational approach to more prosperity. That doesn't mean folks are near starvation and have no other choices, it just means that criminal options may be more appealing than other ones. If you create accessible, non criminal pathways to prosperity, crime decreases..if you remove them, it goes up.

There is a reason that crime goes up a ton when existing tools for survival disappear (e.g. disaster scenarios). When people have paths to prosperity, the need to do crime goes down. When the marginal value of crime is low, people don't do it. You can get there with draconian punishments, but you can also get there with, like, a strong social safety net and general prosperity.

While not the only reason, one reason that my coworkers won't steal my wallet if I leave it somewhere is that the $20 is mostly irrelevant to them given the general level of prosperity at my office.

While it doesn't explain 100% of crime, this is just true. You change people's circumstances such that crime isn't rational, and they're less likely to do it.

I want to be clear, I agree. I have no objection to unique government contracts. I'm specifically curious about GPs position that a government contractor should be (ethically?) bound from putting contractual obligations on government use of their service.

Like the various ai providers limit lawful use like creating AI pornography. I think it would be reasonable to keep a contractual restriction against that even when working with the government.

they shouldn't have some sneaky way to exert control over decision making using their products.

why not, many companies have all sorts of rules you agree to when using their products, including many legal ("lawful") things. Are you saying that the government as a client should be unbound by contractual obligations that apply to other clients?

I think it's because it's easy to make annoying mistakes (still easy to fix with undo) with edit. And it gains relatively little over new+squash. Edit is a useful power-feature, but I think for a novice, "never use it, only use the more well understood workflow of new+squash" is a good heuristic.

This also does not change th code. It is an advertisement to a linter-loke tool to take some action on the source code. Its most similar to linter directives which usually are comments.

The reason it feels like a kludge is that "comments" are normally understood to be non-impactful. Is a source transformation that removes all comments valid? If comments have no impact per the spec, yes. But that's not the case here.

This is not inlining in the compiler. It's a directive to a source transformation (refactoring) tool. So yes, this has no impact on the code. It will do things if you run `go fix` on your codebase, otherwise it won't.

And in fact the law at issue doesn't even assign points.

Having read the order, it doesn't really justify the central claim, that these are criminal, and in my opinion a lot of the context cuts against that (the liability being only a fine and some other things).

Can someone link the order, I've searched heavily for it and it's not linked by an of the articles or findable easily.

The mentioned fines are $1-200, which is in the same range as parking tickets.

I think the best argument is that license points are criminal in nature, but I don't really buy that.

Everything you've said applies to parking tickets too. You can't prove that the owner parked the vehicle.

Tha owner is ultimately civily liable if the vehicle is parked in a way that it shouldn't be. Extending that same civil liability to the active operation, as opposed to only the consequences of active operation, seems perfectly reasonable.

In some ways the government bringing civil charges against you is rather bullshitty

I think there are circumstances where this is true, but I don't think it's true in the general sense. And I really don't think red light cameras, which are incredible for public safety and a really fair enforcement tool, are a good example of a civil rights violation.