khalic

The solution is… more copyright laws? Noooo thank you

Please don’t let your kids on this platform…

Yeah the consensus from everybody that spends some time on it seems to be: just don’t use it

I remember multiple projects giving up on rewriting it. Maybe a machine with endless patience could do it?

It’s tempting to associate both events, but when a sector is strung up like RL (representation learning) is right now, we’re bound to see things appearing at the same time. It happens a lot in frontier research, some people even publishing identical claims, independently, with just hours or days between them

Fiction, there are places that already do this without any of these fabled effects

I don't know what to say other than learn math

By volume sure, a part of the anti AI crowd is pretty extreme though, death threads, bomb threads, etc.

Are you discarding the utility of Gaussian functions in analysis simply because the independent variable is time? A Gaussian curve can be used as a descriptive model without claiming that the observations themselves are a probability distribution

The fit does not prove causation, but it does show that the decline was already well described by a trend that began years before generative AI. If the claim is that 2023 created a separate structural break, it's different claim then the title describes

People love simplistic narratives, i usually don't mind but this is just ridiculous. AI hate is gently overtaking AI hype as the most stupid thing around

Fitting a mathematical function to a dataset does not implicitly adopt the ontological baggage of probability theory. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of applied mathematics

A bell curve is not an "amortised function." Amortization applies to accounting and algorithmic time complexity, not probability distributions. You're likely thinking of a Probability Density Function (PDF). If you are going to police terminology, it helps to use the correct words. Second, fitting a curve with an R^2 of 0.911 is the exact opposite of "making shapes out of clouds.

"How AI precipitated SO's downfall" would be a correct title then

You are confusing a Probability Density Function (PDF) with a phenomenological curve fit. No one is claiming that time is a random variable drawn from a normal distribution.

just because it's approximated by a bell curve doesn't make it a bell curve

I'm going to assume this is bait...

check my other response, it's very much a bell curve, statistically speaking

https://postimg.cc/n9nZGLmb

https://postimg.cc/n9nZGLmb

Goodness of Fit 0.911, Kurtosis -0.849, Skewness: 0.073

It's very much a bell curve

check the graph and superpose the ai adoption curve, you're right to be skeptical

Seing a bell curve and singling out a factor that appears only for the 15% of the total time demonstrates some pretty extreme tunnel vision

Edit: https://postimg.cc/n9nZGLmb

Fascinating! I wondered why some people did that

I’ll always remember Opus going full sarcastic last year, when I asked it to scrape a few tests it had just written:

Of course, let’s delete these perfectly fine tests and replace them with your latest idea…

Preventing selection is quite the useless and user antagonistic pattern...

Yes it was more of a jest than a critique, the comment didn't explicitly say which one it was. In this case, it seems quite clear that Apple has a case.

… so… you’re talking about OpenAI or Apple?

I really need to finish my automated model evaluation harness, I can't keep up with this pace

Right on time for https://arstechnica.com/space/2026/07/how-hard-is-it-to-buil...

Even before that, it was already the case with cassettes

It's incredible how people got convinced, by unrelenting propaganda, that private copy is a crime

What a dishonest mischaracterization of the issue at hand, shame on you

apple and google are regularly on the same side against eu regulations