miyoji

You were answering the question "What security issues come from self-hosting?" The security issue you named has nothing to do with self-hosting. What, then, was your point?

The original post is surely satire.

Yes, they say so at the bottom of the page.

Way to move the goalposts!

This isn't a security issue related to self-hosting, it's a security issue related to use and it is shared entirely by closed weights models. Anthropic could easily be sneaking bugs into your generated code, too.

"Intelligence" isn't a commodity at all. It doesn't make a lick of sense.

The value of intelligence is that it can solve my specific problems in ways that are satisfying to me. The example the article uses is a CRUD app - but the CRUD app I need isn't fungible with the CRUD app you need! It's not fungible at all, it's a specific solution to a specific problem that may have zero value to anyone else, and certainly cannot be replaced with anyone else's solution to their problems.

If we're comparing electricity to gasoline, then models are cars, and "intelligence" (I disagree that this is what LLMs produce, but whatever) is distance traveled.

Distance traveled is not a commodity. It's the desired outcome.

You write code with the same level of attention you give to small talk with strangers?

I got all of that, I just found the David example to be distracting from and unrelated to the more interesting argument that you're making, which I do agree with, and which I think you summed it up neatly here:

I just realized it's silly for me, an individual author to refer to my work as "content" when I could just as easily say "book" or "blog posts."

The first paragraph seems to insinuate that "content" is replacing "art", but that doesn't seem at all related to what the author's actual work looks like, nor does it seem related to the thrust of the argument, which is about how descriptions of your work influence how you think about it. The entire blog looks more like "content" than David to my eyes, but maybe that's because most of the blog predates this shift in the author's thinking?

An easy happiness formula is

I literally do all 8 of those things and I'm depressed as fuck. Maybe mental health is harder than you think?

They don't have free will, and I don't mean in any especially philosophical / theological sense

Then you should not use that term. "Agency" or "intentionality" are much clearer alternatives that aren't wrapped up in centuries of debate that's irrelevant to what you're trying to communicate.

60% is a 50% bigger number than 40%, so I don't understand your point at all.

Generally, in American winner-take-all politics, 60% is considered a massive landslide.

That goes against my personal experience.

Anecdotal experience doesn't matter. Mine contradicts yours, but my anecdotal experience also isn't strong evidence.

There are countless polls showing that the American public's sentiment towards AI is both negative and falling.

This was my favorite bit of meta-commentary: it doesn't matter how poorly you play, you never lose!

Sure, but how much art do we need for that?

A lot more than we have now.

One (or a few) sculpture can satisfy the needs of a large community.

I cannot disagree more. You may as well say that no one should tell stories anymore because we already have the Iliad and Hamlet. You may as well say that Vincent van Gogh was wasting his time picking up a paintbrush because we already had so many great Renaissance paintings.

Art isn't a commodity where you spend 15 minutes a day Admiring Art and it gives you the aesthetic equivalent of your daily protein intake.

By this logic a person who were comfortable with mouse should never grow to like VIM.

Quite the opposite, my argument is that habits are changeable.

Fundamentally a computer is something that execute instructions. It is pretty poor interface to pick instructions from 100 options using a mouse as opposed to type it using a keyboard. A mouse hides the power of the computer behind a set of fixed clickable options. That is a pretty poor interface.

You continue to argue for my point. OP was claiming that measured efficiency does not matter because it's about "flow". I argue that one can teach oneself to flow differently, the commands can be learned.

I think this is unhealthy self-handicapping. Your "flow" is just habits, things you've taught yourself to do. You weren't born with the ability to use either a keyboard or a mouse, there is no "natural" or "intuitive" way to operate a computer. It's all 100% learned behaviors that can be altered.

I don't care if it's on GitHub at all, it's not hard to work with any arbitrary git remote. CVS would be a weird choice, but it wouldn't be a dealbreaker on its own. Fossil or some other modern alternative VCS wouldn't be a red flag or weird at all.

But I wasn't talking about contributing to the language, which is a weird standard to use here since Zig isn't interested in outside contributors. I was talking about choosing a programming language for use for some professional or personal project. I don't give a fig what version control solutions the team chooses to use if the language is good and solves my problems, and I would consider it very strange if someone tried to argue that I shouldn't use some language because they put their code on a non-Microsoft owned server.

This feels backwards—if the service gets worse, simply cancel your subscription.

It's not backwards. I've canceled many subscriptions because software has gotten worse. I occasionally check back in with those services to see if they've gotten better, or at least back to as good as they used to be and they are always, inevitably, worse.

I'd love to hear about a subscription that gets better over time but I haven't had that experience. I've also heard how product managers talk about subscribed users and I don't like being thought of that way by the businesses I give money to.

Okay, well I don't want most of the updates I get for most of the software I've paid for. I often cancel subscriptions due to unwanted updates. Spotify was a good app once upon a time, but it sucks now. If I could pay to use the old version, I would, but Spotify won't let me because they think they know better.

Additionally, shipped software used to not need too many updates most of the time, because the expectation was that the thing you bought was the thing, and any updates would be to address major defects in the product. Now, most software is delivered in "MVP" form where it doesn't even have all the features most users would want, and they get slowly dripped in over time, or they don't, and you never get the thing you originally wanted from the software at all.

Overall I think this has been mainly a loss for consumers. Security is better, and that's a real win, but frequently updated software is usually lower quality software, because it can be.

Not quite as lazy as ""Everyone I disagree with is Hitler" is such a lazy way of thinking"

This is like the textbook definition of an ad hominem.

No, it isn't at all. Ad hominem is only in effect and fallacious when the logic turns on the personal attack. "You're wrong because you're stupid" is ad hominem. "You're wrong and also you're stupid" is impolite, but logically fine.

To clarify, I think that the entire "History" section is unrelated to Andrew's argument, only the "Addressing the Blog Post" section actually contains arguments, and that section doesn't contain the rude comments, it's focused on technical decision-making.

It depends on what job you're talking about. I've definitely been shitty at several that I've had in my life, if you're talking about those I would simply agree with you.

I have never once in my life cared about where a programming language kept its source and I think if anyone is using that as a basis for decision-making, they are truly a moron.

Linus attacked bad software

"Nvidia, fuck you!"

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4SWxWIOVBM

There is no numbers, no statistics, just your anecdote here. Which is ok, but that's why two people immediately called your opinion out as being extreme.

No one else provided any, either. If you have strong evidence that exposure to media you don't like is bad for your children, please provide it. If you don't have any, my anecdote is better evidence than you've provided.

Two people calling out an opinion as extreme does not make it extreme, and an opinion being extreme does not make it wrong.

You should think this through. The logical endpoint is that all age based content restrictions are "authoritarian".

I do think that. It's rude to assume that I haven't thought my position through.

So it should be ok to stock movies like Martyrs[1] or Men Behind the Sun[2] in elementary school libraries, because who are parents and teachers to decide whether seeing a woman flayed to death or a child vivisected is something that a 6 year old should be allowed to see?

Sure.

My real takeaway here is that you probably don't have children.

I don't, but I was one, and I accessed all kinds of stuff on the internet that my parents and teachers didn't want me to see. Including gross violence and sex stuff. It didn't kill me. It didn't even hurt me. I'm fine. I'm a better person for having exposed myself to those things than I would be if I'd been sheltered from them.

one of them is not appropriate for elementary schools because it includes essays debating which sexual acts are appropriate for feminists to perform and other adult topics. Why is it "authoritarianism" to say that a book like that doesn't belong in my kids' school library?

Who exactly are you to say what is or isn't appropriate for elementary school libraries?

It's authoritarian because it's about people with authority (parents, teachers), telling people without (students) what kinds of media they are and aren't allowed to consume, which is about controlling which ideas they're allowed to think about. You don't like children thinking or learning about sex, but there is no moral or rational reason for that. You just don't like it, and you wish to use your authority to impose your preferences on people who have no power to stop you. That's authoritarian.

And no, I don't think parents should be able to control their children's media diets, the idea that parents get to control their children is itself authoritarian. You don't own your kids.

crypto used more energy than banks (which proved to be false, but whatever)

The true accusation was that crypto used more energy than banks per transaction. Your framing is very dishonest.

The founder is very good. He builds a plan that, on paper, is flawless and airtight: manufacture a more efficient oven using new technology. Selling it is easy. Want to work more efficiently? Buy our oven. End of pitch.

Are you kidding me? Here's my business plan: manufacture faster computer chips than anyone else ever has before using new technology. Selling it is easy. Want faster computers? Buy our chips. End of pitch.

Here's my execution strategy: I'm going to hire the person who comments the most on Hackers News discussions about new chips and let him loose, then come back with a million new requirements because I never bothered to understand anything about how people want to use computer chips or how they're sold today.

My company eventually loses its only customer when it turns out that we don't know how to build faster computer chips at all.

The founder is not "very good", he's a moron who doesn't make a single good decision in the entire story. His failure is absolutely predictable because he doesn't add any value for anyone else at any point in the story, he doesn't understand his customers, he doesn't understand the market, and he doesn't understand his employees and their motivations. The only thing he ever does is raise money, and he's able to do that because his investors also know nothing about the customers, the market, or the potential employees.

Great business parable! This matches how reality works 100%, including the delusion that guys like this are "really smart".

Free-market libertarianism is a disease for which evidence is no cure.