jrm4

Oh, I'm 100% about how much I trust AI labs to do the right thing, which is never.

In the words of the meme, "why not both?"

So, I graduated from law school 20 years ago, and -- given even the internet THEN, like, pdfs over mail -- that law journal filing cabinet thing was actually already dying; I had more than enough past history of outlines and stuff.

That all being said, I would be entirely unsurprised if the "mythology" of "YES the journals have the secret fancy sauce that no one else can get" lived on.

Also -- and I don't necessarily want to denigrate law school professors, it's another thing that's just gone on so long that "this is how we do it" -- yes, the law School "Socratic method" (at worst) is an effective form of possible professor laziness; they can just "ask questions about the cases" and not really teach.

Related to how law school "textbooks" aren't textbooks. They're literally just a bunch of cases slapped together with a tiny bit of commentary (unless that's maybe changed too, I hope?)

Again, not all professors, you CAN still teach very well under this framework. -- but it is an out for those fancy people who's forte isn't teaching.

It's only strange if you do the silly thing of presuming a "fair market" in which e.g. it's generally easy to get reliable information about how all of the things work.

There's just obvious and enormous incentive for the OpenAI's of the world, along with all of the other players, to confuse, misrepresent or just straight up lie a whole bunch about everything given how new and unknown the tech is.

But again, I think you're dancing around "Stallman was right," which is frankly why I come to the reverse idea.

I think it is fine to call these things "open" because "open" was loosey-goosey already. It wasn't Free.

The more I see this argument, the sillier it becomes to me. The point of "open source" in software is something like "the ability to deconstruct the thing line by line for purposes of predicting what it will do."

But you can't fully do that for generative AI anyway? What's the point?

Now, if you wanted something more robust, then you probably should have supported Stallman's ideas and insisted on Free Software in the first place.

Weirdest downvote I've seen. This isn't like, painfully obvious to everyone?

Maybe I'm old, but it feels like everyone has a little too much "business-brain."

It's a metaphor.

Okay, but it kind of sounds like you want to nanny-state the writer's language.

Their conclusion seems like an absolutely fair interpretation of what they saw, and it also strikes me as dangerous -- perhaps more dangerous -- to suggest "writer genuinely believes, or doesn't believe, a thing, but they should say it differently from their own interpretation because..people are dumb?" Something like that.

Interesting to see that this crypto thing might still have legs, as someone who's invested a lot of time (and thankfully, not a painful amount of money) into the idea.

Yes, it's scam city too, but it will be interesting to see if "permissionless money" actually happens and how.

And for the record, most people here pointing out that bitcoin itself, as perhaps this "opennode" may be useless here, are correct. Bitcoin mostly can no longer do what it says on the box, but newer forms can.

Obligatory "Stallman was right" here.

Seriously, though. Without legal teeth and against marketing, "Open" never much stood a chance.

Interestingly wrong; probably has to do with the fingerprinting and whatnot.

I do appreciate that the "canirun" one

1) was also wrong 2) but let me pick my real card from the dropdown with results that seemed much more accurate.

Genuine question - is there literally any factor besides RAM and GPU (with VRAM info?)

FWIW, I love the poetic way Pusha T of the Clipse addressed this in POV

"They content create, I despise that; I create content, then they tries that.."

Absolutely. Which is why what I think I'm saying is that -- it's not ncessarily important who or what WROTE the paper, it's simply important that human-in-the-loop is strong.

I would like some sort of proof of this claim. I genuinely don't know, but I would suspect that the gap between "things found" in LLM v. Human papers is not as great as we would like it to be.

Aha, I'm getting back into this sort of thing, and I've always been a fan of Tinc for things like this, but it is showing its age.

Is it? I guess look -- I'm an academic, I've read piles of articles such as these. Signal to noise, already not great.

Yes, I feel like there's room to improve things, I just strongly doubt that "using AI to detect AI" is a particularly useful thing to do here.

Oh, to be technically correct:

AI hallucinates and makes up stuff 100% percent of the time. Never been a fan of that word for this.

Again, I fail to see the problem here that isn't solved by careful reading WHICH IS WHAT PEOPLE SHOULD BE DOING ANYWAY. I would like to see room for AI disclosure, maybe a statement of "this is how much AI I used."

But this blanket X% of this looks like AI? Again, so what?

Wait. Go on? Is this with or without the device?

For the record, I always wondered why I couldn't do something like this with whatever magic is happening under the hood with Syncthing.

I've been doing networking related things for over 20 years, and it's still wild what doesn't click for me...

The important question is:

So what?

Genuinely. I get that there may be some visceral reaction against this, but when I break it down, I mostly fail to see the problem. Seems like what is actually important is:

Compared to before, when a human reads it, do they -- or society -- get something good out of it? Is it worth it to add this to the "pantheon?"

If that's not what's happening enough, and if this doesn't describe the process -- then the problem lies elsewhere, no?

Old guy here, wild that people don't know this.

Like, I have fiber and a static IP. Never much thought about hosting a website from my house because it didn't seem all that special. Maybe I should?

The interesting irony of using Bruno Mars, who, for my taste, really is something like Human AI.

Uptown Funk is a very enjoyable track -- but if you're familiar with his influences, it can make his music generally stale and unenjoyable. Like Silk Sonic has the technical sound of that era, but it feels like they're treating it like a joke.

What 50 years of security do you speak of here?

I kid, somewhat.

I do think it's good to remember, "running things on your system with full admin rights" goes all the way back to monopoly-era Microsoft where it was never meaningfully addressed, and we're just still living downstream of that.

Right, and I think I mean "whichever one the big companies are trying to sell us on." :)

This literally proves it's not "intelligent," no?

"Stop typing in 'load-bearing' or you're fired," would work with any competent human.

But this requires tinkering and tooling?

No, I mean it's absurd that a horrible "standard" like a Word Doc has such staying power, and that we have to keep writing things against it.

I feel like a lot of people here are understating this issue.

This is a stupid stupid thing to "allow," for every party involved here.

You're a stupid programmer if you're letting these things touch your files.

You're a stupid company if you're letting Grok run wild.

We're a stupid industry if we're not warning everybody about how ridiculous this all is.

Good work on the effort to the author.

And every time y'all, how absurd is it that this still has to exist? It never stops being wild to me.

So, I think of articles like this that evaluate "software" or "tools" or the value of "coding" so often miss the huge point of "there are a lot of different kinds of software/tools."

It just depends on what you're DOING. It's all so very subjective. And I think the smart direction here would be for us to be clearer and force ourselves to be more specific when we begin to evaluate approaches like this.

Certain types of work NEED invisible tools. Other types of work NEED "legible" complexity. To say nothing of individual preferences.

I just don't see much value in sweeping generalizations like this article.

So, I'm a college instructor, and sometimes I find myself reading a paper that I dislike -- and as I get into it I'm finding that I'm mentally arguing with the content and the actual argument(s) (as opposed to "quality of writing") and that's when I realize this person should get a good grade.

This is like that for me; he sounds kind of annoying, but as they say, points were made.