The summarization is the main issue here. A fuzzy search is far less controversial. The LLM companies have done a good job synonymizing "AI" with their products however.
Overall opposition is at 70%, and opposition of "MAGA supporters" and Republican men is around 55% (~45% support). It's a difference but it's not like many issues where these numbers could be opposing 90/10s in these groups.
Maybe? I still don't really fully understand what issues people had with it unless they'd only ever used the system python installation for everything.
>By a 40-point margin, voters oppose building data centers in their area to support artificial intelligence (30% favor, 70% oppose).
>MAGA supporters (46% favor) and Republican men (45%) are the groups most likely to favor data centers, while White women with a college degree (84% oppose) and liberal voters (80%) are the most opposed.
So the type and content of what fiction I write should be controlled so that LLM companies may choose for the sake of maximum profit to haphazardly collect any data they please and to neglect the safety and validity of the content they choose to serve users?
On the contrary, I'm saying is that it's not okay that the world becomes worse-off, as long as it's not [the LLM companies'] fault. If it means they don't have a viable business model by only ingesting data that they have permission for and is verified, and by being held fully responsible for the content they serve their users - in order to prevent the world from becoming worse-off - then they should not operate.
If I write a story that includes a character mixing bleach and ammonia for curing asthma and publish it on my website, am I responsible for an LLM company ingesting my story without contact or my consent and then at some point in the future providing a user instructions to mix bleach and ammonia for curing asthma?
It's not something I really relate to, having working on a fairly large project with significant dependencies that is used as both a library and an application. I see uv often used just to try to paper over bad dependency and compatibility management, which ends up being self-reinforcing. I guess if it's being used strictly for final deployment, sure, but that doesn't (shouldn't) remove the need to pay attention. It's hard for me to see it as anything but an attempt to eventually make the state of Python tooling be "everything breaks, unless you use uv by Astral™"
This shouldn't be surprising. Astral has wanted to create lock-in with uv for years and obviously they'll want to bring everyone into their "ecosystem" as much as possible. Stand by for more divergences from main python or use of their "market" capture for leverage over it.
How do tokens and copyright things play into this? I don't really understand. You can just pipe the audio straight from yt-dlp into whisper and it just transcribes it directly.
He's supposedly trying to buy a house with an LLM without knowing any of the language and presumably the culture, so this kind of behavior seems right on point.
No, people now have postprocessors that replace the emdashes with other punctuation marks. It's subtle but you can tell when this has happened because it doesn't change the structure, and the LLMs misuse the emdash in a relatively consistent pattern.
They don't see them as a "coding tool," they see them as your replacement. Everyone's replacement. Even if everything gets worse. Just a coding tool doesn't drive up massive valuations.
I really hate the new trend to "clean up" UI everywhere which has the effect of not using screen space and forcing you to perform more actions in submenus.
I don't think it helps if they're just random icons. Look at https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions . I went there a few days ago and immediately was distracted by all the random emoji icons scattered everywhere, and none of them provided me any useful information. I swear this is a new thing because it was just that noticeable. I had to put them in my adblock list.
It's tough to say the exact multiplier but I've walked around at night a lot for years, and there has been a very significant increase in the number and intensity of outdoor lights, as well as a move away from motion sensors toward permanently on.
1. They can gain at least a temporary advantage by using a proprietary version. They'll have the original devs who can continue where they were before.
2. I wouldn't be surprised if we end up with a situation where LLM-based copyright laundering becomes illegal/enforced, but only in favor of large corporations' copyright, in which case they could maintain the advantage
What would they miss out on? A bunch of PRslop? The "open source community" is now dead.