Levitz

>Or is it only when the people doing it eat more rice than us that it is bad?

It's definitely different when the player doesn't even have to play by the market. Comparing US companies and Chinese companies is not apples to apples.

Not very...?

In the west, billionaires are often able to get extremely favorable treatment by the law as an expression of the power money gives. This is not the case in China, in which the party stands at the top.

In practice that's just a difference of incentives that I'm not sure at all is beneficial for anything but an authoritarian regime.

It doesn't matter if they get it, because they wouldn't care either way. They would just pivot to "but more are destroyed this way" or "but these have value or they wouldn't buy them" or some variant of it.

There is no logical train of thought. It's not about logic.

It's an excellent play by them, using moral outrage to the benefit of the project. When life gives you lemons...

The outraged people don't care. They hate AI, and so anything surrounding AI that can be evil is evil. Books are good, AI destroys books, AI is bad.

Furthermore, they like that AI is bad. Because they think it's bad, and being right feels good.

The degree to which his works have been dragged through the mud by a bunch of people who insist on calling everything they don't like "capitalism" can't be overstated. The majority of people complaining about capitalism don't even have a coherent definition of it, it's a disgrace.

Not to remove any merit from Poland, but I think the EU deserves a bit of recognition here.

It's actually worrying that people seriously believe stuff like this.

These are two completely different types of mistakes.

LLMs are, by now, pretty good at not making "code doesn't work" and "math doesn't work" kind of mistakes when writing code. These are also "easy" things to get good at, you learn what each part does, understand the abstractions, ensure it makes sense, and go on with your day. Unit testing helps here.

LLMs are not that good at not making "this works wrong" kind of mistakes. Maybe the code compiles and does what it has to do, but maybe it's 2 lines of code with 6 lines of comments (looking at you Claude), maybe it defines three helper functions it doesn't really need, maybe it does something "here" when it should be doing that something "there" instead, maybe it finds itself in a framework and completely disregards how the framework is supposed to do things, etc etc. These are harder things to get good at and you WILL end up with an unreadable mess if you disregard caution and let the LLM go at it.

The article includes interactive graphs and scrolling animations that explain them, as well as data.

By now, such things are so prevalent that I don't think it would even make the news anywhere.

It's a form of engaging, plus it's a rant.

I've yet to see good outcomes from self-infantilizing.

It's just really hard to affirm that something has "no practical use whatsoever". Maybe it doesn't have use "now", maybe it doesn't have "direct" use but can be used for another finding that is useful, Math has a long story of finding out stuff that turns useful later on.

Yes, how does the LLM make a difference there? Inexperienced developers write bad code. Hell, experienced developers who are outside their domain write bad code too, then you later realize that it's hard to read, or that it leads to architectural problems or such, and hopefully learn from the experience.

It's harder to convince people to all agree on the same, different from the norm, thing.

If you've got 5 people in a car and you play ABBA in every road trip, then one day you suggest to change, the problem is not in being okay with "something else", but on agreeing what that other thing should be, set against the already known thing.

That's why there's so much infighting in the left.

The "left" as in the party, sure, not that much of an authoritarian leaning.

The "left" as in the pervasive group that crawled out of Tumblr, took hold of Twitter back in the day, and has a stronghold on Reddit now? Those do care about what you can say, think, watch and read, and the more they can control, the better. The US right can only dream to have half as much control as the left has had in the last three decades.

Then that's the point. You know the code sucks, the guy who vibecoded it either didn't know or didn't care. That's the added value.

With the ruckus, I thought this would be something that was displayed in Google Earth.

I can't grasp how this is an issue at all? There are other 20 services you can use to do this exact same thing.

>This is a nakedly hypocritical stance, but completely understandable from a company-needs-to-make-money standpoint.

No, it's perfectly reasonable once you get down to reality.

China is not going to care about IP. That's just a fact. So either nobody cares about IP (at the very last in this context) and any AI company can just do whatever with data, or Chinese companies have to be held up to scrutiny.

We don't have the privilege to be able to hold western companies to higher ethical, legal, and environmental standards and not risk competitiveness.

That there is a whole lot of people right now who insist on doing above and still somehow praise China at every turn is something historians or news outlets will have to make sense of in some 5 years time.

That "massive hack" is supposed to be one of the core features of React.

Because without bigger players, Chinese models don't get anywhere. Playing catch-up is a radically different game.

Because the hegemony-ensuring machine will most certainly have "prevent others from competing for hegemony" as one of the basic tenets.

Suing is absurd as it would get nowhere, since this is China we are talking about.

Now, preventing making business in the US based on those products? At this point it's hard to argue against.

Aggressive expansion of infrastructure, R&D and very volatile audiences.

I routinely get into blocks when running medicine-related material through it.

>Please, no. GLP1s leave you worse off than when you started if you stop taking them.

This doesn't seem factual, or at the very least, not that simple?

https://www.epicresearch.org/articles/two-years-after-stoppi...

>My interests are best served with a competitive selection of open weights models available for my use.

Which is why Chinese companies use people like you.

Sorry for being blunt but if you think this policy would continue in a scenario in which they are hegemonic you are extremely delusional.

Also:

>I'm not going to stop using them just because some other people don't like the country they were developed in.

This is not a serious sentence, but a preposterous, straw-manning assertion to make, and it borders on the insult.

You've got perfectly reasonable and predictable scenarios if you read the post.

CoC drama is already a much too known vector of problems, this adds fuel to possible fires.

>fear-mongering about how legitimate projects will be removed next.

Fear-mongering?

What were legitimate projects are getting removed already. This is not fear-mongering, it's just not being incredibly shortsighted.

Well, for starters, banning content that is already present on the platform is a very aggressive measure. You are, in practice, kicking people out, and it's perfectly reasonable for those people to be upset at either Codeberg or its community.

For seconds, this proves that Codeberg may in the future ban any project. The platform is, flat out, without a doubt, not reliable long term, and I reckon about anyone should be pretty upset at that.

Third, this reeks of children playing politics. If you are going to put measures as strong as these on the table, you better have very defined lines on which to act upon, and you better have a good rationale for them. This doesn't seem to be the case in one account or the other, which paints the administration as not only incompetent, but delusional on their competency. This may not warrant anger, but it sure does warrant frustration and disappointment.

It is perfectly fine to take politics seriously. I reckon more people should do it. There is a huge problem though in which people mix that up with taking political action, without actually putting the work on what to do, why, how and what are the consequences. That is the actually hard part, and this looks more like "we are anti-bad stuff" than that.