bigfishrunning

After reading the little schemer, I bought two more copies just to lend out to people. It's that good.

"I wish the corporations did censorship instead of the government" isn't the anti-censorship take you think it is. I agree there's a ton of vile shit that people don't want to see, but client-side filtering is the way to handle that, not "please, zuck, don't show me stuff you don't think i'll like, and I completely trust you to decide what that is"

I prefer the schemes.... Chicken scheme for standalone programs, s7 for embedding into larger systems. They're simple and easy to mold to whatever shape you want in my experience

> Next time I would splurge a bit more and buy a machine with more RAM.

Sam Altman would prefer you didn't

I don't think they're suggesting that, rather that the "more eyeballs" quote is a bit flawed (in that not every project gets enough eyeballs). A thing can still be better then another thing and not be perfect.

> PHP is junk literslly(sic) written over nights by some volunteers!

And yet everyone knows this, and millions of people still continue to use it and develop new software with it, to avoid learning from our mistakes. The software industry is just not interested in fixing these problems; I've heard people upset that AI is pointing out flaws, instead of being upset that flaws exist. Deeply unserious.

sounds like your uniforms were not uniform enough

Not necessarily -- I am extremely anti-AI; I think the danger is not that it's good, it's that it's convincing. Turns out most people don't care about the quality of art or prose or code that they interact with, and it's very depressing.

I assume the standards you're referring to are things like The MISRA guidelines, or the IEC standards (specifically 62304). In my experience, these are applied in very "check-the-box" ways that often undermine their intent; Very very few organizations take software safety seriously.

We shouldn't have to "push reboot" on systems we rely on. The fact that that's acceptable is a big part of the problem.

So those goals and timelines should be reconsidered; If a civil engineering firm slapped up a bridge as quickly and cheaply as possible with no concern for quality, they would cease to exist. We have no standards for software quality, and therefore anything that accelerated the perceived output is enthusiastically adopted without consideration for any future consequences.

Weinberg’s Law -- If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker that came along would destroy civilization.

> For a programming job you could be exempted from using AI tools to do the work, but you would still have to do the work at a reasonable standard.

Plenty of programmers don't work at a reasonable standard; See, for example, every security incident ever, proliferation of slow electron apps, commercial software that flat-out doesn't work properly.

I consume Debian on a regular basis...

Why not? Linux distributions contain tons of packages that are not the Linux kernel, and just because AI patches have been accepted in one place doesn't mean they'll be accepted elsewhere.

> This is a website about starting businesses.

It's really not, unless the only qualifier for that is "hosted by a VC incubator". Most of the people here are here to argue about AI or Crypto or whatever, or read announcements from Nvidia and Google. I would bet less then 1% are starting businesses.

Having an encyclopedia entirely sourced in an LLM that is easily manipulated and prone to "hallucination" doesn't seem like a great idea, that's why not.

the only way to fight back is to put up (and use!) small web pages, and foster small communities.

I would expect that, just like other cryptocurrency, "cloud wallets" will manage the tokens themselves for most people, who will gladly give up decentralization for the tiniest bit of convenience

did not know it was a mastodon thing

5 has two ones in it!

Not yet we don't

Nobody takes PKI seriously. This will continue to happen, AI or no AI.

Good. Let it burn. It's not that GPT-x is dangerous, it's that the security practices that it's pointing out are.

I wish any company that gets sunk by this a very happy go-out-of-business.

> For people who matter in India it is just some random incident which Anti-Indian entities are whining about.

Does this mean "trust no indian CAs"? those "Anti-Indian" entities hold a lot of power, and the indian IT industry needs to maintain the trust it has with the rest of the world.

And now I've got "one winged angel" stuck in my head, thanks

sounds like "meeting compliance" is inadequate, and "compliance" needs to be increased. A rising tide raises all boats.

Sure, and by outsourcing this simple thing, you're just a little more complacent. Someday, when it does something silly, you won't notice.

It went OK this time. There's no guarantee that it'll go OK every time, for every thing.

All I'm saying is that understanding how to maintain the systems that you are responsible for maintaining is an important thing, and outsourcing that understanding is very dangerous.

cool cool cool. Don't understand what you're doing, and keep not understanding what you're doing. the agents are infallible after all, and who cares about properly verifying certs anyway? that's nerd shit.

I wish I could permanently disable it, I've accidentally read incorrect information on it in the past. I usually just try to skim past it.

That would require honesty and trust, which are two things that most online projects could only dream of having