evertedsphere

hubris

It's pointing out that the person who posted something couldn't be bothered to actually write it themselves. The "content" is the prompt, which is of course never shared because it's probably so trite that it's not going to get anyone's interest unless it's stochastically decompressed into a large amount of text.

Like the sibling commenter, I do not write Ruby and do not care about this conflict apart from a general interest in supply chain stuff. I'm merely tired of the constant encroachment of obvious LLM prose in HN submissions and (albeit less commonly) in comments.

i used to have a setup like this on i3, using i3-msg to query the state

https://rustc-dev-guide.rust-lang.org/tracing.html#i-dont-wa...

What system was this?

the notion of "turns" is a useful fiction on top of what remains, under all of the multimodality and chat uis and instruction tuning, a system for autocompleting tokens in a straight line

the abstraction will leak as long as the architecture of the thing makes it merely unlikely rather than impossible for it to leak

because that is perfectly reasonable to the llm that wrote that readme

should have most of it

all of the major labs' flagship models are multimodal and the post is specifically about processing the non-text parts of the page

imagine the bandwidth

the spirit in which that page is presented is different from what you seem to have taken it to mean

(btw: the 死は生の一部である at the end is missing the final る)

nobody will put a language model in a pacemaker or a nuclear reactor, because the people who would be in a position to do such things are actual doctors or engineers aware both of their responsibilities and of the long jail term that awaits them if they neglect them

this inevitabilism, to borrow a word from another submission earlier today, about "AI" ending up in critical infrastructure and the important thing being to figure out how to do it right is really quite repugnant

sure, yes, i know about the shitty kinda-explainable statistical models that already control my insurance premiums or likelihood of getting policed or whatever

but why is it a foregone conclusion that people are going to (implicitly rightly so given the framing lets it pass unquestioned!) put llms into things that materially affect my life on the level of it ending due to a stopped heart or a lethal dose of radiation

haskell implements the "perfect derive" behaviour that the blog post is complaining about rust's lack of. the constraint is only propagated to the field types when using a haskell derive, not the parameters themselves (as in rust)

so the following compiles just fine:

    data Foo -- not Eq

    data Bar a = Bar 
      deriving Eq

    f :: Eq (Bar Foo) => ()
    f = ()