mberlove

Asking this honestly...if certain kinds of inflammation tend to accelerate aging, and those inflammations can be controlled or decreased, does that, in effect, at least slow (if not actually reverse) aging? Granted that the headline is sensationalized, it seems like there may still be a point being made that is valid.

This specific finding is minor, but its implications are not IMHO. From the article it appears the researchers consider this a discovery in effect.

If consumer hardware is already capable (in many settings) of reproducing what were formerly research-level and industry-grade techniques, it may be a transformation in more areas of technology than would be obvious. I am very curious to see if there will be further findings in this area.

As a concept, it's intriguing. In practice, a lot of pieces need to work out just right for this particular instance of the idea to gain traction.

IMHO a few factors need to be met:

* Truthfulness -- granted that many topics have opinions and schisms.

* Reliability (self-healing articles?)

* Ease of use -- I think this needs the most improvement. Search is iffy and navigation unfriendly, IMO.

If nothing else I think the growth of something like a competitor is beneficial on its own. A single "source of truth" is nice, but that's not the age we live in, for better or worse.

1. As a sporadic viewer of the newer Simpsons, the quality appears to vary. How can any show remain consistently humorous through nearly 40 years of content? And across how many writers, over time? That being said, it's fair to expect quality. I wonder where the funding and viewership is coming from presently (if those remain related).

2. This is not strictly related to the article content, but I hope I'm not the only one disturbed by the low quality of writing coming from even AP. I don't try to look for nits to pick but this article is a good example. E.g. "triumph tinged with perfectionism." -- This is poor wording. I think I understand the meaning -- that perfectionism, which has downsides, has removed something from what is otherwise triumphant. But it is not written clearly. Another: "Nancy Cartwright arrived at her 1987 audition expecting to read for Lisa Simpson. She had other ideas." -- This reads like a line AI wrote. There are other examples scattered throughout the content.

I guess it's not really important, and I guess there's no reason for me to be picking on this article. But this is a top-of-the-line publication (in theory) and a relatively high-visibility article. I know writers are under pressure to produce content. But there are plenty of writers who perform well under pressure, and editors exist for a reason -- what does it imply that AP, among others, is disinterested in the quality of their own articles?

Everybody's got a party and if you leave, you ruin the party -- apparently. Isolated "walled gardens" are a kind of Intranet. Ingress requires buy-in (sign up, log in, identity proof, human proof); leaving means breaking out to the more transparent, connected internet, which is a big problem when data is dollars.

Maybe I'm reading too much into it. More and more patterns seem hostile, antagonistic to the user, and it seems like it's an adopted practice that's taken as a standard. I hope I'm wrong.

Is there a way to keep up to date on updates and new announcements? TIA.

Agreed, from the article, there doesn't seem to be much of a correlation. Just two largely unrelated trends.

I'm not sure I understand the claims being made. I'm curious if this is experiential / anecdotal or if widespread.

I think OSS is OSS always...being able to audit it makes it (reasonably) reliable, at least in the sense of security. I can look at the code, run checks, etc. That alone doesn't guarantee things can't crash and burn, but it's a great start compared to a closed-source solution, even if that solution stands on its promises, as reputation in software is an iffy prospect today.

I'm not aware of any SoTA outside of Veo and Sora. I've found the two of them mostly comparable for one-off use cases. Veo3 might be a bit "crisper" in some uses but this is anecdotal...I'd also be curious if anyone else has a similar experience.

I've always been interested in the little I've read of Pepys, but I had no idea about this backstory!

Does anyone know when (if?) the offending passages got included in the published version?

Sometimes it seems you can "remind" the more established models, and this will bring the context back into focus (just from personal experience) but why that would work, I can only guess.

What methods have you found to brute-force through the problem?

I know I'm not alone in maintaining a strong feeling that we've "gone the wrong way" with tech in a lot of ways, as the meme goes, and forgotten (societally) that tech is there for us rather than the other way around. I like your approach - take a light touch using technology; use tech where it helps and ignore it where it doesn't.

(The challenge of course is when you can't or aren't allowed to ignore it, its own challenge).

I see the points others are making, but I would find this a useful tool, I think. IMHO the missing factor gets bypassed on many posts like this (not just on this platform) -- the proof is in the product.

Like any AI tool, the created results can be positive or negative. The churn of poorly written articles and reduplicated imagery has most of us on edge, but that should not negate the purpose and quality of other output. Some commenters appear to see this tool as just another means to rapidly generate slop content, but I don't see why it should have to be, nor do I think that was the intent of the author / creator.

If what guides the use of the tool is the desire to create a certain piece of content, to express something, and the tool aids in telling the human story, then it's a winning answer, I think.

Completely agree. This is a great insight. IMHO part of the growth of a programmer is learning how the code fits the context, and a large part of that is writing less code, not more, or getting rid of some entirely.

Creating an effectively physical representation of a neural net appears like a major step forward, even if this is just the first part of that step. I am surprised that this is the first instance of this kind of attempt, but maybe it's just the newest? It's hard to keep track of the progress from outside the industry!

I think the determinant will be how transparently this process is maintained.

Interesting. I view this as an antagonistic move against users, one of many in recent months and years, so I guess it's not really surprising (but that may be in large part my own preferences).

IMHO this breaks down into one of two answers: 1) I'm building something that makes a difference (if you think it does). 2) I'm building something that someone thinks makes a difference, and that person pays me (it's a paycheck).

To my mind currently some tech jobs just get caught up in the whirlwind of self-justification, while others you could argue provide real value to people. Which side of that a particular role is on is, I think, largely subjective.

So...someone thinks it's worth it to pay you. Maybe you care too; at the least, it puts food on the table because it matters to someone enough to swap money for.

That's my 2 cents, but I invite a disagreeing perspective.

This is really neat, and close to something I have always wanted to implement for managing a small local notes handling system.

(As a side note which may be a kind of artifact of coding turf wars, I just can't consider a Node application with a number of dependencies truly lightweight, no matter how straightforward in practice. I know this is more lightweight than most comparably scoped applications, and the term lightweight often just implies fast / efficient / easy, but the overhead required for a standard Node JS setup appears contrary to the concept of lightweight in principal. Have at me).

This article read a little different than I expected from the title. I was just thinking about this topic recently through a book that surveyed historians in the 19th century. So many of them got their starts doing historical research as a hobby or a passion in life. The discoveries they made were a life's work, their joy rather than something required to do (many did make it their occupation, though not all).

It's inspiring I think that the depth of passion in any topic can carry you through to important discoveries. In that sense the coding hobbyist and the citizen scientist are little different IMHO.

Can I ask, do you find that the benefits that other respondents are claiming (maybe younger respondents) are artifacts of a wishful thinking? Is it possible that the benefits are somewhat real, but come with downsides? I'm not leading in any one direction, but I am curious if the experience is more objective or subjective.

Tried this out, pretty interesting! Nice usable interface, though I'd personally want some more video controls. Video summaries are fantastically helpful.

The processing seemed to jump through a huge amount of video really fast...was it pre-processed or does it just rack up enormous amounts of compute (if you don't mind the question)?

Speaking of compute, is there a cost/fee expected to drop for this?

Thanks for making & sharing this tool.

It's easy to get negative about a seemingly narrow technology. It's easy to want to compensate by becoming overly optimistic. I have trouble fluctuating between these since it's also easy to make convincing arguments for both -- point to a swell of articles for progress, point to a stagnation as lack of progress -- but all technologies go through this.

IMHO it's premature to have a strong conclusion on this, and way too easy to let feelings, pro or con, influence our projections.

Interesting. It could be the further "down" on the foodchain your academic discipline, the more certain you might need to appear, or think you should appear -- at least this seems intuitively likely, though that is entirely guesswork and there could be many factors at play.

This strikes a chord with me (not that I'm the only one). Every time I write longform, I intuitively want to include, "maybe", "might", "I think", but then axe them from my writing so as to not invite total dismissal.

In the abstract the authors write "Among the existing studies, there is also divergent understandings." It'd be interesting to see the methodology of this paper (doesn't seem to have access without pay) and how it differs from previous studies.

I don't think it's so bad, but if I had to guess, it's from the division / breakdown of sections and lists, which reads a lot like the formulaic approach you get from an LLM (which is not necessarily bad, just common in the output). E.g. "Docker and Docker Compose can simplify the process of installing and managing services. They allow you to:" etc etc. This may sound like an LLM covering all its bases rather than a human explaining subject matter.

That's just my take, again I don't think it's that bad. The article would be a useful breakdown for beginners.

(Also, I'm sure you know, LLM content sounds that way because the LLM was trained on content just like this, so it's not really surprising that a guide generated by an LLM would sound like the kind of guide that was used to train an LLM...)

Glad to see the settings controls are getting an adjustment. That's been a minor pain point for me.

It's not a poor idea, but to work it would require further revamping of roadways. The bike lanes in most major areas are unlikely to support this well (given proximity to traffic, breaks in the lanes, etc).

It may end up moot -- the article reads a bit on the speculative side, and this project might fall the way of many startups of "good idea, bad implementation," but I'm willing to eat my words in the future on this.

I've been plugging search engine result links for reddit and stackoverflow into archive.org to "bypass" - works more or less.

Ditto on this... I also wonder how this meshes with "You can share just about any kind of link in FlingUp." and "Anything goes on FlingUp." (from the tour)

It seems as though users may share links to whatever, but only content which they own. A difficult line to tread.

For the op, I would ask for a little more clarity on the intent.

(N.b. this might cause some issues posting AI-gen content, which is sans copyright by law, at least in the US. Maybe that's the intent?)