rowbin

Anti-AI mentality claims another victim

Maybe have a seasoned mathematician check if the counterexample is really bogus before saying people fell for ai psychosis.

as can be seen in this comment section

Maybe, maybe not. The "proofs" may not have helped at all with finding a counterexample. Either way, it doesn't matter. A counterexample was found, no one found one before even though clearly a lot of people have tried who also had access to the prior "proofs".

Absolutely!

Works

Hopefully fable 5 will be back soon. I had so much more fun on vibeSH with it. Its remarkable how much better it was at hallucinating a coherent shell than Opus 4.8. It was especially good with the ansi escape codes to get the colors right.

I get "JSON.parse: unexpected character at line 1 column 1 of the JSON data"

Author here. Happy to answer questions.

One clarification: vibeSH does not run commands or inspect your machine. The model only sees the terminal transcript, and the transcript is the fake machine's state.

Clickable link: https://stelae.eu

Thanks, ditto!

Oh, I released something with the same name recently: https://codeberg.org/beleon/mdview

I don't think anybody's worried about that. There's much more to it than just having a good idea and letting ai vibe code it.

Anyway, soldering as a service is nothing to worry about so you're good either way.

Still working on stelae.eu (private WP editor -> static deploy: more secure, faster, cheaper). Its pretty solid already, only working on minor things. The main issue is that I think that I have a real cool product (maybe a bit boring, but in a good way) with good values (anti lock-in, privacy respecting, EU centric, fair pricing, no VC money -> sustainable business approach) but I can't reach the people that would love to use it. So thats what I'm really working on: trying to be more visible.

I think this conflates setup cost with operating cost. The painful part of self-hosting was always to get it working: writing configs, reading docs, SSH ceremony. That's exactly the part that agents can help with a lot, so the perceived gap to Vercel shrinks a lot. But the problems that come later are still there, you just discover it later. DDoS absorption, zero-downtime rollbacks, cert rotations failing at 3am, someone else getting paged when they do. An agent can write my firewall rules, but it doesn't carry a pager.

So I'd reframe the thesis a bit: AI didn't destroy the moat, it moved it. Saving the customer setup time is no longer worth paying for, taking operational liability for the customer still is. SaaS that only offer the former are indeed in trouble, and honestly founders should verify that their product doesn't have this issue.

Many have theorized this. But i wouldn't bet money on it, the timing is just too unpredictable IMO.

He doesn't really use the reliance argument. Whether dropping the pause was the right call is a separate question from whether people were allowed to rely on it. They were: the v1.0 language alluded to a much higher bar for changing commitments than they ended up applying, and Anthropic employees described the RSP as binding many times (Habryka says he heard it on more than a dozen occasions). Also, Hubinger's post announcing v3 says Anthropic is responsible for that impression. If you made vendor decisions based on that like the author did, the complaint is still valid, even if the change itself was the right decision. Both can be true at the same time, they were right to change it and you were right to feel misled.

I agree, his takes should not be dismissed lightly. I'm not sure about "demand is fixed" though. I feel like software demand has been declared saturated at least a few times.

https://archive.is/FIvq4

I saw what changed syntactically. I meant I don't really understand what changed semantically. And whether there is any context to why the change was necessary.

I'm out of the loop. Is there any context? Can't pick up on what really changed here.

Wow, auto-installing any plugin onto live production sites should never be opt-out. For those managing client sites under approved-plugin policies and PCI compliance this isn't just a minor inconvenience. "We sent an email" is not an alternative to consent, and pointing people to manually uninstall across hundreds of sites is not a good way to handle the situation...

Safari (2023) led among major browsers, while Firefox and Chrome currently maintain experimental support.

That's rich coming from the company that tried to kill it. The audacity...

Sorry to hear that. I feel for you. Getting an SaaS off the ground is hard and there's no guarantee that it will work. I know nothing is ever that easy and circumstances are complex, but my advice would be not to focus on the SaaS. Not that you should abandon it, but it should probably not be your only hope. You can't force an SaaS to work out. Focus on your mental health and the relationship with your family. Focus on job search. Continue with your SaaS but limit the time and money you invest.

I know its never as easy as just do this, this and that and everything will work out fine. I wish you the best.

That is very concerning. Any chance this could be coincidence? Is there anything known that is not speculation?

That sounds like a pretty good deal for stack overflow...

Interesting, I looked into some of these types of services for my SaaS but used none of the listed providers except Mollie. I landed on IONOS for hosting, Scaleway for transactional mails, mailbox.org for receiving and sending manual mails and statichost.eu for hosting my docs.

So the answer to your questions:

1. Is answered in the parent comment

2. It's not really about solving problems directly. Its more about a common way to hold meta information about your data. But of course that might help you with approaching similar problems.

3. Thats hard. You dont really think about it that way. Again its not really the type of problems directly. Its more about similar approaches to solving different kinds of problems. So you can use monads for solving basically any problem. But you can also choose to not use monads to solve the problem. This is something you'll need to get a feel for. And it shouldn't be for first line of thought. When solving a problem you might recognize that a certain monad lends itself to solving the problem. But it's not really something you actively go looking for.

Since the monad structure itself carries some inherent information, that is how "side effect" information can be carried outside of the actual data and be part of the monad structure instead. So e.g. the Maybe monad. It either has data or it does not have data. The information whether carries data or not lives outside the data itself. Or the list monad carries information on how many data points it carries and the order of the data points without that being being part of the actual data it holds.

This is how "side effect" information is carried outside the actual information the monad is carrying. Real side effects like writing to disk however are not real monads. The IO monad pretends to be a real monad but it's not. It just helps with hiding the impurity of IO from the pure parts of Haskell.

So one might think about the IO monad kind of like the list monad where the order of the IO operations is encapsulated. It kind of pretends that the IO part is pure and deterministic when its actually not in order to have a somewhat clean separation between pure and non pure parts of the program.

Hope that helps.