stymaar

if you read a paragraph of even semi technical software text you will feel like an over stuffed turkey.

That's me when I try reading a trendy computer graphics paper.

Meanwhile with cryptocurrencies you have the choice between getting blocked by your exchange or losing your wallet (from your own negligence or a hack)

Do you have any aircraft on mind that can unfold its wing while flying? (I'm aware of variable-sweep wing which can reconfigure in flight, or foldable wings that will be fold on the ground before parking).

This! And this is why the “crypto” world is full of scams and heists, in a way that anyone with a brain could have foreseen from the start.

Until customers don't want to but because they are afraid they have no way to get their money back if anything goes wrong.

(Chargeback exists for a reason, and the reason isn't to piss off businesses).

This was thr original intent of thr Satoshi paper, except BTC is probably the worst payment network you can think about, which is why it failed to gain any use as such over the past 18 years…

The defining characteristic of a commodity is that it is fungible: a gallon of oil is a gallon of oil; a ton of copper is a ton of copper; a bushel of wheat is a bushel of wheat.

The concept of “commodity” as defined above is a model, a simplified abstract representation of reality, but that does not match the reality perfectly (the map != the territory).

The author claims that a token isn't literally an ideal commodity, but neither is oil or wheat, many factors influence their real value (intrinsic properties, location, available storage at production, expected delivery date, etc.) so that no two gallons of oil in different contracts have the same price.

Is treating “tokens” as a commodity a worse model than treating oil this way? It depends who you ask! I'm pretty sure that a chemist working at a refinery would be more happy to see tokens being felt with like a commodity by his company than if they started viewing crude oil like one.

(Overall, there's way too much economism in that post, and way too few facts, and as a result the argument makes very little sense, the author basically wrote that both OpenAI and Anthropic are drowning in cash right now because compute scarcity means the price must be significantly higher than the marginal cost…)

There has always been a magic money tree, but it's not for everyone.

This the proof that guillotine is useful, if not to be used, to make the elite behave in way that avoid suffering it.

Rust as a language is irrelevant to this discussion, the problem is that bun was vibe coded by a single dude without any open source community involvement. “bun the open source project” is basically dead at that point: don't expect any of the zig enthusiasts who had their code being forcibly rewritten in a language they don't like to follow Jared.

“bun the JavaScript runtime ” is not dead though.

Its not a typo, someone coined that during the DeepSeek R1 hype period and I kept using it since then.

I totally agree with you on the fact that it's not morally any different than pre-training. IMHO we should have a legislation that force base models to be released publicly without any restrictions whatsoever as it's basically the product of the whole humanity's intelligence.

Kimi K3 reproducibly identifies itself as Claude

It could also be have been trained from collected response datasets. Claude got caught several time responding it was ChatGPT or even Deepseek and I don't think Anthropic has been distealling DeepSeek.

This behavior is exactly what you'd expect from a model distilled from Claude.

The opposite actually. If they wanted to distill Claude without getting caught they could just use a regex to change Claude to Kimi in their distillation pipeline!

Germany manages free speech and democracy as well as it does producing software.

That sentence works suprising well for the US too: enshitified and completely controlled by a cartel of trillion dollar corporations.

True. I don't understand why they overwrite the date at all actually, for either the post or the comments, that sounds like the hackiest way of implementing the “second chance pool” feature.

Second chance pool, most likely.

What happens if you get margin called in this scenario?

But is it load-bearing?

Directly not to care because they lost in court.

I'm pretty sure the illegal sport streaming websites didn't stop doing that just because it became illegal, otherwise they could have stopped their activity altogether while they were at it…

I'm not exactly sure who you think won the arms race there, but it seems like we the user did not.

I, at least, won when the webiste showing ads gave up the race (for the past decade at least, only time will tell about the future).

nd yet the biggest advertizer on Earth (Google) decided

This is actually an argument in my direction! The owners of websites (which are also the ones posting slop today) didn't care enough and the situation only changed because Google moved.

I expect the same thing with slop. Individual websites won't make any effort to make their slop unblockable, and it will only be a problem if OpenAI/Anthropic/Google decide that they care about this market. But unlike Google in the ads market, I don't think the model providers have any reason to care. The web is already dead in their mind anyway.

There is significantly more spam than 20 years ago, just less of it reaches your inbox.

This goes against your very argument from earlier!

On top of that most people have given up on their own email servers and instead depend on Google/Microsoft to do it for them.

Out of convenience, but you don't need that to be practically free of spam. Whatever version of SpamAssassin is being run on OVH's mail servers has been enough for that purpose for me.

they'll gladly supply the LLMs spam and the LLM solution while applying their 'flavor' of what's allowed to the entire internet.

Again, they don't care about the web. They just crawl it for content but they don't want you to read any webpage, they want you to stay in their chatbot. Every other use-case is nonexistent to them (except coding agents, of course, but that's a different product altogether).

I don't think it's a very good remark, as there's significantly less email spam than 20 years ago.

Another example is ad-blocker-blocker. There was a little bit of an arm race between ad blockers and advertisers in the middle of the 2010s, but it didn't last long. Advertisers mostly just decided not to care about ad-blockers.

Over-using em-dash or whatever isn't the thing that maximizes engagement.

It's the thing that minimizes the loss during the RLHF phase, and the RLHF phase is the one that's aimed at maximizing engagement (it's literally trained on that).

what happens to the actual humans whose writing style is a close match for what a given generation of LLMs output?

If a human, for instance because its writing gets polluted by reading too much AI slop, matches the style of an LLM closer than a certain threshold, then his own writing is going to be flagged as well. Whether it's an actual problem or merely a theoretical one is an open question. (unlike OpenAI and Anthropic, humans writers do have an incentive to avoid being flagged as AI).

And, what stops LLMs from using a different style when someone wants to fool the classifier?

In theory: nothing. In practice if you fine-tune your own model: nothing. In practice with commercial models: the interests of the model making company.

And, what stops LLMs from using a different style when someone wants to fool the classifier?

Websites have pretty much stopped using ad-blocker-blockers, it seems that it's not a fight worth fighting for them. Does that mean that ad-blockers are useless?

Most people don't even care about ads, I don't think they care about slop either, that's why there's slop posts and obnoxious websites that are unreadable without an ad blocker. A slop blocker used by 10-20% of the internet users wouldn't change the calculation more than ad blockers did.

The first is that it would still misclassify human-authored text written under the same incentive, and most people have various incentives to "maximize engagement".

The thing is, humans are significantly worse at maximizing numerical goals than computers.

And the second is that then people would just make other models that are tuned for defeating that sort of classifier, which would be used whenever the classifier is being used.

Anyone can already do that right now, just grab unsloth studio and fine-tune your local Gemma, but nobody cares. People posting slop content don't care if pangram or I flag their slop with certainty, they are using the easiest option, which is commercial chat models. And given this segment of user doesn't care, the provider have zero incentive to provide a dedicated stealth model for that purpose.

but it's a bad fiction to perpetuate that any of this is anything more than tarot card reading.

Hard disagree. LLMs (especially base ones, that only received pre-training) can produce output that is undistinguishable from human writing (because that's what they were trained to do).

But commercial chat models are specifically tuned in a way that maximizes user engagement. It's that specific tuning that is very easy to spot when reading AI slop, and that's not surprising that it's easy to spot automatically either. And I don't think that's going to change anytime soon, unless their incentives change.

(We can say exactly the same thing about man-made stuff optimized for a specific purpose, like stock photography, clickbait titles or industrial food: they aren't stereotypical because their creator lacks the skill to make them otherwise, they are like that because that's what works best).

Irrespective to the technical merits of both language, moving from a stable language to a pre-1.0 one that just lost his most popular open source project is a wild move.

AI prose is better than the average human

There's no objective measurement of “better”, which in itself refutes your argument, but I personally feels AI prose to be very annoying for mostly two reasons:

- it's the same everywhere. People could use AI to write in different styles by prompting and through few-shots learning, but they don't and as a result every AI generated prose looks like something I've already read. Its junk prose the same way way Mac Donalds is junk food.

- if someone doesn't make the effort of writing or even customizing the AI output, then what I'm reading is a low effort post and it's highly unlikely that I'm going to learn anything in the process. As a result as soon as I realize that I'm reading AI slop, I feel the immediate disappointment of having committed some time to reading something that wasn't worth my time.

Historians will look back at all the silly dead humans in the past that icked and yucked about AI.

Like we look at the silly dead humans in the past who fought back against opium, cigarettes and leaded gasoline?

True capitalism has never been tried

“True communism has never been tried”

I’m still having to deal with making some sort of legal agreement with EVERY website I visit over cookies constantly… I just don’t care anymore / click whatever.

That's the problem when you want to be pro-business while keeping the vague intent of protecting privacy.

They didn't mandate cookie banner, you can either not track or add a cookie banner. Of course businesses living off surveillance capitalism will chose the cookie banner. They could have banned tracking altogether, and chose not to because “it's bad for business”.

We've built an entire civilization (the industrial civilization) around the idea that competition is where project comes from, I don't think we have the necessary mental framework, let alone the institutions, to make that kind of cooperation work unfortunately…

American Marxist degrowth mindsets.

A literal Communist dictatorship is winning the race thanks to their 5-years plans yet you still think the problem is “too much Marxism in the US”.

What an utterly deranged take.

It's not even the worse part. Journalists have used the "it is not A, it is B" for a while and it never was as bad as AI doing it.

The key problem is that AI have no “idea” of how to build an argument, so it just rephrases the same ideas over and over in different forms. There's no direction, no structure, it's just rambling.

Check out 2015, it had way hotter temperatures in November

That's what El Niño is about: instead of declining after a peak in June, temperature plateaus and then rise again later in the year.

So the fact that the Pacific is much hotter than it was in 2015 is particularly scary, because it leads us to believe that it will also be this hotter than 2015 in November.