bjt

Maybe? I could see that happening.

I could also see them being compared with companies still using venture capital to give stuff away for free. In that case, I'm OK with that tradeoff. I'm not really excited about changing my infrastructure every few years to keep getting a free lunch.

The Digital Ocean app platform I recently migrated to is a lot newer than the "rent a VPS" model that they've had forever. Yes, it's not free like the Vercel and Cloudflare Workers I've also used recently. But it also doesn't force my app into a weird shape or to use their preferred language.

On a continuum where AWS sits at one boring+expensive end of the spectrum, and all the subsidized-pricing "we might not be here tomorrow" PaaSes sit at the other, I like the in-between spot where DO sits.

Agreed. I liked the post. Then that graphic cost the author a whole lot of credibility points.

Digital Ocean is run into the ground? I've been with them for a long time and recently just launched new stuff. Still a pretty nice experience and a pretty decent price.

Thanks for that. It had flown below my radar.

The idea is just to avoid being the softest target. The scammers attempting this fraud don't want to do all the work you describe. They'll just move on to the next vacant property.

Too harsh. Trump was president once before, and didn't impose 150% tariffs on anybody. You don't have to be a fucking moron to assume he'll behave similarly in his second presidency. Trump says a LOT of things that he doesn't end up doing.

From the Patreon FAQ:

> Can I opt out of the App Store Fee?

> For U.S. fans, there’s still a way to avoid Apple’s fee. When signing up in the iOS app, they can choose web checkout instead of Apple’s in-app purchase system. Apple’s rules require that any paid content shown in the iOS app is also available to purchase through Apple’s in-app system.

https://support.patreon.com/hc/en-us/articles/28801582599181...

> Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that AI can eventually serve to level the playing field for everything. It outputs novels, paintings, screenplays - whatever you ask it for - of such high quality that they can't be discerned from the best human-created works. In this world, the only way an individual human matters in the equation is if they can encode some unique insight or perspective into how they orchestrate their AI

It's an insightful point, but I think there's more going on. It seems that quite a lot of the people consuming media and art do actually care how much it's the product of a human mind vs generated by a machine. They want connection with the artist. Maybe it's a bit like organic produce. If you give me a juicy white peach, I probably can't tell whether it's an organic one, lovingly raised and harvested by a farmer with a generations-in-the-family orchard, or one that's been fertilized, pesticide-sprayed, and genetically-engineered by a billion dollar corporation. But there's a very good chance I care about the difference. I'm increasingly getting the impression that a big swathe of consumers prefer human-made art. Probably bigger than the percentage that insist on organic produce. There will be a market for human-created works because that's something that consumers want. Yes, some authors will cheat. Some will get away with it. It'll start to look a lot like how we think of plagiarism.

Maybe the strength of that preference varies in different parts of the industry. Maybe consumers of porn or erotica or formulaic romance or guilty pleasure pop songs don't care as much about it being human-produced. Probably no one cares about the human authenticity of the author of a technical manual. But I suspect the voters at the Oscars and Grammys and Pulitzers will always care. The closer we are to calling something "art", the more it seems we care about the authenticity and intention of the person behind it.

The other thing I think is missing from the debate is the shift from mass-market works to personalized ones. Why would I buy someone else's ChatGPT-generated novel for twenty bucks when I could spend a few cents to have it generate one to my exact preferences? I'd point to the market for romance novels as one where you can already see the seeds of this. It's already common for them to be tagged by trope: "why choose", "enemies to lovers", "forced proximity", etc. Readers use those tags to find books that scratch their very specific itch. It's not a big jump from there to telling the AI to write you a book that even more closely matches your preferences. It might look even less like a traditional "book" and more like a companion or roleplay world that's created by the AI as you interact with it. You can see seeds of that out there too, in things like SillyTavern and AI companion apps.

It reminds me of when I worked at an ag tech startup for a few years. We visited farms up and down the central valley of California, and the general tone toward Silicon Valley is an intense dislike of overconfident 20-somethings with a prototype who think they're going to revolutionize agriculture in some way, but are far, far away from having enough context to see the constraints they're operating under and the tradeoffs being made.

Replacing the farm manager with an AI multiplies that problem by a hundred. A thousand? A million? A lot. AI may get some sensor data but it's not going to stick its hand in the dirt and say "this feels too dry". It won't hear the weird pinging noise that the tractor's been making and describe it to the mechanic. It may try to hire underlings but, how will it know which employees are working hard and which ones are stealing from it? (Compare Anthropic's experiments with having AI run a little retail store, and get tricked into selling tungsten cubes at a steep discount.)

I got excited when I opened the website and at first had the impression that they'd actually gotten AI to grow something. Instead it's built a website and sent some emails. Not worth our attention, yet.

You're not the first to have the idea. For languages that are only sparsely represented in the LLMs' training data, this has actually done a lot of damage. The LLMs spew out a bunch of hallucinations, and there aren't enough qualified human editors to review it, so the human record of that language itself becomes tainted.

https://www.technologyreview.com/2025/09/25/1124005/ai-wikip...

The .edu constraint also played perfectly to the most important requirement of a new social network: Your parents must not have accounts there.

They did compare the automated grades to the author's own manual ones. It's in there if you read more closely.

They're subject to California law, so yeah.

https://oag.ca.gov/privacy/databreach/reporting

And at one point in the 90s, Internet=Netscape Navigator.

I see Google doing to OpenAI today what Microsoft did to Netscape back then, using their dominant position across multiple channels (browser, search, Android) to leverage their way ahead of the first mover.

I'll take that bet.

Banks get bailed out because if confidence in the banking system disappears and everyone tries to withdraw their money at once, the whole economy seizes up. And whoever is Treasury Secretary (usually an ex Wall Street person) is happy to do it.

I don't see OpenAI having the same argument about systemic risk or the same deep ties into government.

So can bookstores.

Looks like the site is being hugged to death. Here's another instance of the article (I think).

https://attheu.utah.edu/science-technology/mushroom-causes-f...

Wouldn't tsvector, tsquery, ts_rank, etc. be Postgres's "poor man's search" solution? With language-aware stemming they don't need to be as aggressive with writing to indexes as you describe Biscuit above.

But if you really need to optimize LIKE instead of providing plain text search, sure.

And that's a fine standard to maintain when you're writing an academic paper.

When you are instead putting together a museum exhibition intended for the general public, and you observe over and over again that they will interpret your work as representing what the statues actually looked like, it is irresponsible to keep giving them that impression.

It's not an either/or question. They could do some of the statues with just the pure archaeological approach of only using the paints they found in the crevices, and do others in a layered approach that is more speculative but probably closer to how they actually looked. If they did that, this article would not be necessary.

My ninth grade English teacher never made it back from Christmas break because of this.

The user's last prompt can be sent with an idempotency key that changes each time the user initiates a new request. If that's the same, use the cache. If it's new, hit the LLM again.

Weird take. The id field in the SSE spec is there specifically so you can resume a stream. And that requires persistence/caching on the server side. Once you have those things, you're practically at the pubsub option that the article prefers.

Neither are the Zigtools folks. If you've ever run an open source project, you know that instead of running on money, they run on community goodwill. Having people take the project's creation, claim it as their own, and not comply with the license, are all damaging to people's motivation to contribute.

It's addressed in the post. MIT license. Zigbook is not honoring the attribution requirement. A PR to change that was closed and obfuscated.

> Written response needs TAs.

Can AI not grade written responses?

Having everything in my phone is a great convenience for me as a consumer. Pockets are small, and you only have a small number of them in any outfit.

But cloud services run in... the cloud. It's as big as you need it to be. My cloud service can have as many backing services as I want. I can switch them whenever I want. Consumers don't care.

"One model that can do everything for you" is a nice story for the hyper scalers because only companies of their size can pull that off. But I don't think the smartphone analogy holds. The convenience in that world is for the the developers of user-facing apps. Maybe some will want to use an everything model. But plenty will try something specialized. I expect the winner to be determined by which performs better. Developers aren't constrained by size or number of pockets.

It's partly about Netflix getting sued by someone claiming infringement, but also partly (maybe mostly) about Netflix maintaining their right to sue others for infringement.

The scenario looks like this:

* Be Netflix. Own some movie or series where the main elements (plot, characters, setting) were GenAI-created.

* See someone else using your plot/characters/setting in their own for-profit works.

* Try suing that someone else for copyright infringement.

* Get laughed out of court because the US Copyright Office has already said that GenAI is not copyrightable. [1]

[1] https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intell...

> capital punishment should be on the table.

Isn't it, though? If a corporation was found guilty of murder I wouldn't be surprised for a court to order it dissolved.

A restriction on government (as the First Amendment language is phrased) is not the same thing as an individual right. There are plenty of cases where a restriction is in the law, but only a very limited set of entities has standing to sue to enforce it. You could imagine such a case with regard to the First Amendment if we didn't have the corporate personhood doctrine.

Not sure exactly what the parent comment intended, but it does seem to me that it's harder for an LLM to undergo a paradigm shift than for humans. If some new scientific result disproves something that's been stated in a whole bunch of papers, how does the model know that all those old papers are wrong? Do we withhold all those old papers in the next training run, or apply a super heavy weight somehow to the new one, or just throw them all in the hopper and hope for the best?