agar

Yes, how about just "loading"?

Have you looked at assbench.com? Even with threeJS rendering, screenshotting with Playwright, and iteration (check the prompt) some of the models are shockingly bad. I wonder whether the rendering quality is affected by the requirement for skin physics on click; if so, it raises a valid question about models creating pretty pictures but break when interactivity is required.

(As I said in a separate comment above, results are all bikini-clad and not revealing. However, whether it is NSFW is up to you/your work policies.)

Models seem to have very interesting blind spots. While https://assbench.com/ may seem like a joke, the results are very illuminating. One might expect far better results given the detailed prompt, allowance for render checks and iteration, the number of human figures the models are trained on, and clarity of tool use (threejs).

However, result quality really drops off once you get out of the top 5 or so.

(NSFW note: all buttocks are covered by fairly conservative bikini bottoms and show no genitals, bulges, etc.)

While this might be overly cynical, it's also a powerful validation of the exact feedback loop that you want to have in an organization.

If what you say is true, then the next set of benchmarks will be written to illuminate the true reflection of real-world tasks. Then those get benchmaxxed so managers can show "numbers go up."

Repeat enough times, and you get materially and genuinely improved products.

The burden is on the press, outside researchers, and general tech industry to both write and care about the metrics that matter.

If your answer to "here is an example of 1:1 copying of my code and I can do the same for every line in your app" (Github comment 7, from the Photopea author) is to copy/paste a justification from an LLM (comment 8, from the Photosuite author), you've lost the argument.

The hard reality though is any site written in JavaScript is now part of an LLM's training set and can (and will be) be trivially rewritten into something new. Interesting times.

>“He who hath grown wise concerning old origins, lo, he will at last seek after the fountains of the future and new origins. […] For the earthquake—it choketh up many wells, it causeth much languishing: but it bringeth also to light inner powers and secrets. The earthquake discloseth new fountains.”

— Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra

Did Medium not get a response, or is this a display issue?

Interesting that High got the render order correct, with the back leg behind the bike, while xhigh and max have both legs on the same side of the bicycle. Astra only got this right on Max.

This was a very interesting, informative, and well-written comment (and experiment). Thank you.

I recommend you read the article. It's short, illustrated, and does a good job of explaining what's new, how it works, and how it extends existing Array functionality.

Excel arrays are difficult to work with, exceedingly slow, and didn't have some basic formula support.

This looks like a very sane implementation, addresses some issues with traditional arrays (while extending them nicely) and implements those much-needed formulas.

To my knowledge, you still can't write an email client in Excel.

OK, maybe with plug-ins, but probably not natively.

Probably not.

Maybe.

I think there's truth to what you say.

The Amiga pushed the boundary in so many directions at once that the horizon extended far beyond what I was used to with the DOS/EGA/TSR/ISA/x86/PC Speaker environment. Or, the monochrome VT100/PDP-11/multitasking/multiuser systems I used in college.

At the same time, it was clear the horizon was limited...but could be pushed back through a combination of cleverness, and discovery, and code. You felt like there were true discoveries to be made, whether it was through looking at source code found on UUCP, by finally understanding the purpose of some struct found in the Amiga ROM Kernel Reference Manual, or just experimenting with blitter or copper code.

Despite (or perhaps because of) the depth of knowledge available, computing today feels stale; anything "new" is only new to you. A million people would look at your "innovation" with disdain as its such a well-trodden path.

In a way I welcome AI-based coding, because if there's no joy (for me) in the (coding/discovery) journey, perhaps I can at least feel there's magic in getting to a new destination more quickly than ever.

I wish there was a way to recapture the feeling of magic produced by using the Amiga. From usability to programmability, everything seemed exciting, new, and with unlimited possibility.

It really was like going from a black-and-white world to seeing full color.

I always said that if 1% of the effort (and money) put into overcoming the PC architecture's shortcuts was put into the Amiga, the computing world would be in a very different place.

You can wire it to a laptop. It supports direct DisplayPort over USB 3 input, which it will display on a large virtual monitor.

At least pick something that will result in a good name:

"Create an SVG of Shaquille O'Neal eating potato chips shaped like a telecopier."

Shaq'sFaxSnacksMaxx

This reminds me of the "I drink your milkshake" scene from "There Will Be Blood."

Does the ACM really think LLMs haven't already consumed 90% of the content through other sources?

I'm on Teams and Fable is now usage credit only.

Note to the site author: Using Chrome's translate tool seems to break your UI. Upon first visit, I was prompted to translate from Portuguese to English and accepted. Subsequent visits required I click the "Translate this page" button on the right side of the URL bar. (Edit: Chrome 1490.7827.201 on Windows 10).

When translated, clicking the Solver drop-down (default 3x3x3) displays:

Unexpected error

Something went wrong. The current screen broke unexpectedly. Please try again or switch routes to reload it.

That was an incredible example and I'm frankly more impressed each time I read it at how well constructed it is. You really capture how sensitive the analogy section is to cultural or domain knowledge, and why the College Board eliminated the question type.

Perhaps. I do remember the discussion about whether the SSC consumed so much basic research funding that other areas would have their funding significantly constrained.

Basic research has such a long time horizon it's interesting to think of the fundamental grants that might have been affected. Quantum computing? CRISPR? mRNA?

I wonder whether the cancellation of the superconducting supercollider was a net positive or negative for science.

If it continued to completion, it would have had almost 3x the beam energy of even the upgraded LHC in 2030 (20TeV vs. 7TeV). But the questions are fundamentally political, not scientific: Would SSC operations and funding have continued through the US economic challenges of 2001, 2008, and 2020?

I could see a timeline in which the SSC got built and discovered the Higgs boson before LHC came online, causing the LHC to be canceled, delayed, and/or starved of funding -- only for the SSC to be shuttered during the "great recession" of 2008 or during any other US Gov't belt tightening exercise. Today we would have neither the SSC nor the LHC.

Or, perhaps SSC would have accelerated other discoveries by 10 to 15 years (SSC go-live was to be in the late-1990's versus LHC's Higgs discovery in 2012).

Have you looked at media ownership recently?

The days of a scrappy newspaper or local market newscast are over. Reframe your statement from "People in cities tend to be on the left. Journalism majors tend to be on the left" to "People who own media firms tend to be on the right. People who set journalistic standards for their outlet tend to be on the right."

For what it's worth, the most effective propaganda is that which reinforces latent biases.

Humans en masse are selfish, self-serving, and tribal, so it's incredibly easy to believe that there is massive abuse of social services like SNAP/EBT, those delivering services are incompetent, and that we should investment more in fraud reduction.

However, the reality is that the US spends $3.75 for each $1 of fraud discovered. And, "fraud" includes clerical errors made by the government, so the actual ROI of enforcement is even lower.

So much of the propaganda -- "immigrants steal benefits paid for by hardworking US taxpayers, so we should ramp up enforcement spending to make more room for [white] citizens" is designed to simply reinforce our biases because it's just so darned believable to a cynical and tribal people.

In reality, spending more on benefits enforcement just loses taxpayers more money while cutting more US citizens off from benefits they both need and are eligible for. It results in the opposite of its stated goal and this is well known to any policymaker.

So if saving taxpayer money, and punishing those guilty of fraud, isn't the actual objective of all this toxic propaganda, you have to ask yourself what is.

Because there is a law against people impeding or trying to influence people within 150 meters of an abortion clinic. Her admitted goal was trying to influence people entering. Will her defense be that she does not believe prayer has an influence on the world?

Most would agree that 150 people standing in front of the abortion clinic would obviously an attempt to impede or influence people. What if someone stands there "praying" but really noting faces and license plates for future harassment? Where does the law draw that line?

The ADF is a discriminatory, corrosive organization that has done real harm to millions by rolling back civil rights in the US, and now they have taken their agenda internationally.

The hypocrisy of calling this a "thought crime" is stunning. ADF is the same organization that brought a case against a Colorado law that banned discrimination against LGBTQ businesses, because a baker was worried she may have to bake a cake for a gay wedding - which she was never asked to do. So some thoughts are legally protected (prayer) while others (concern) are justifications to roll back civil rights. But the thoughts of others (terror and shame while entering an abortion clinic, feelings when discriminated against, love for a same sex partner) are irrelevant and not worthy of protection.

Their stated purpose is "advancing every person’s God-given right to live and speak the truth" - but only "live" and speak the "truth" that they deem to be correct, based on their evangelical and politically-charged interpretation of Christianity. And they want that legislated.

Amazon is still at 5 9's availability, they just shifted the decimal point left once.

Reading the comments, this is both a "nothing burger" and a reason to geoblock California.

It does too much, and too little. The costs are too high, and too low. It's an example of corruption, but also a good first start at regulations. It will drive AI companies out of California, but also attract more companies with a lower bar for edge innovation.

Can anyone link to an actual informed and nuanced discussion of this bill? Because if it exists here, I haven't found it.

Same can be said for search. And your statement is provably correct, depending on the definition of "good tool."

But it's not only money's influence on the company, it's also money's influence on the /data/ underlying the platform that undermines the tool.

Once financial incentives are in place, what will be the AI equivalent of review bombing, SEO, linkjacking, google bombing, and similar bad behaviors that undermine the quality of the source data?

Isn't the Iocaine developer from Australia?

A great description was just posted as a comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45068268#45070258

Little known fact: in the late '00s, PGP Corp had developed a free standalone "Viewer" to decrypt email if you didn't have the full PGP email product installed (the onboarding process walked you through initial key generation and publication on a keyserver).

The decryption process showed the encrypted PGP Message block and used a similar Sneakers-inspired animation to transform it into your plaintext email. It was incredibly cool and I remain sad that the product never saw the light of day.

Yeah, I wish I read the comments before reading the article. Thanks for the heads up.

Honestly the article was not worth the read, let alone the spoiler.