setopt

Seems legitimate to me. Did you find any technical error?

Ah yes, indeed, the well-known point-cow approximation!

In some countries it is, to some extent. In Norway for example, it is illegal to broadcast ads for political parties, alcohol, tobacco, plus basically any ads specifically targeting children (though the last one is often violated).

More or less the same as social media but for agents, perhaps?

When I want to book an airline ticket in the future, I expect my LLM agent to contact the airline LLM agent, and the two to discuss options and negotiate a deal on my behalf.

Not yet, as far as I know, but perhaps someone will find a way to do that in the future. We're talking about the next two decades here, a lot can happen in that time.

DNA itself can be thought of as a language which describes proteins, and I personally don't know enough about the limits of LLMs as a technology to claim that it can never be adapted to, say, do reverse translation from desired protein shapes into DNA sequences.

I disagree with this take. While LLMs themselves are currently unreliable, the work done in the math community on hooking up creative LLMs to reliable verifiers like Lean show that it’s possible to construct systems where the unreliability is suppressed. For now, that still requires experts to set up and monitor, but I do believe that in a couple of decades we’ll make progress on how to do more mundane tasks in a reliable way without expert supervision, where an LLM still sits as the translation layer between humans and machines. And that universal human-to-machine translator, I would certainly consider a foundational technology.

EDIT: If you asked people on the street in 1990, they’d probably not consider the Internet to be in the same category as the Steam engine either. I mean, you already had phone and fax, so it wasn’t that ground breaking. And I’ve even read articles from the mid-90s declaring the Internet a temporary fad.

> Like I will get to an ATM and think "wait - what is my PIN?".

Apple also has this stupid thing where you sometimes have to type your iPhone pin on your Mac to verify your identity. I’m unable to recall it on a keyboard instead of a keypad.

> have learned them over the years

Well I guess that’s the difference? I personally change themes many times per day depending on my mood and the lighting conditions, and probably go through at least a few dozen themes in a year.

I don’t need to memorize colors either though, I look for differences in colors not absolute colors.

> I’ll stick with my local LLM that’s slow but handles my simple requests from time to time.

Sounds like a worthy partner.

The issue at hand isn’t people using AI to make some app that they and their mom will use. That’s awesome.

It’s people who insist that potentially millions of other people should be affected by their vibe-coded stuff too, by upstreaming it into Debian.

I vibe coded some simple things for the family myself, but I don’t expect or require anyone else to want or use it.

Are you using the 31 release or prerelease? The mode was changed to experimental right before release.

Just FYI, I think the comment you replied to is by the author of the mode and an upstream Emacs contributor, so I would assume their instructions are up to date for the 31 release.

Well, yeah. I also wouldn’t like to explain to my family why my emoji is more important than being set for life.

Given that most measures of intelligence follow nearly normal distributions (as long as you stay away from the tails), I think it doesn’t matter that much.

"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that." — George Carlin

Sounds better to do postprocess filtering explicitly? For example, adding random noise with amplitude 1/255 (which should be as invisible as the watermark), followed by a smart blur that blurs more in directions where the colors are more similar (making the blur less obvious to humans).

But this is all moot really, if MS Paint is watermarking shit, it’s better to just use something else. Nothing from Microsoft is trustworthy.

So any mail to anyrandomstring@yourdomain.com is actually received? Sounds like something that works great when only you do it, but might quickly be abused if it catches on?

> But the consistent trend of the last couple decades (arguably since Turing's time) seems to be that any time a computer reaches our definition of intelligence we decide that that was a flawed definition

I do recall a couple of decades ago, when the Turing test was discussed as the big goal that seemed so far away. Then LLMs arguably did pass the test, and no one cared about the test anymore.

> instead of even trying to provide feature parity, they basically dumped all that responsibility onto the WM/DE devs.

In other words, the Wayland people should perhaps have defined official protocol extensions early on to cover most of what X did, thus preventing all the initial interop issues when Gnome and KDE and Sway tried to reinvent them independently.

> You generally can’t apply functions to dimensional units. The only thing units can do is be multiplied or divided together. So I can multiply a mass by a distance or divide a distance by a speed, and I can multiply the result by a scalar; but I can’t take the sine of a distance or the logarithm of a time or exponentiate a mass. Those are things I can only do to scalars.

I mostly agree with your explanation, but would like to emphasize that this is just a convention from mathematics which mostly carries over into physics and engineering. We like to define functions that are R -> R and similar, instead of defining special sets like R° = { r * 360° | r \in R }, corresponding to "real numbers with unit degrees", and then defining functions like sin: R° -> R. It’s just simpler to define and analyze most functions from R -> R and so we mostly do that.

But if you look up physics papers, it’s not uncommon to define functions that require unitful inputs as well. For example, the wave function in the Schrödinger equation maps a position r (3D vector with unit meter) and time t (scalar with unit seconds), to a probability amplitude (complex number with unit m^-3/2), so that \int |ψ(r,t)|^2 d3r becomes a scalar (a probability). Up wave function is still considered a function by all physicists.

Very exciting. Closed source was one of the main things making me not try it out yet.

Any good resources for getting started? And anything on doing NumPy/SciPy-like stuff in it?

There might be a market for a USB-C camera to take phone screen photos to immediately upload back into the phone.

According to the rules, accepting or refusing cookies should be equally difficult. Making them both difficult makes people not use your site, so the incentive should be to make both options easy if you follow the rules.

Malicious compliance is to make cookie acceptance much easier than refusal. Lack of oversight doesn’t punish this. Now, the incentive is to make life hard for people who decline cookies. That results in more annoying pop-ups.

As a non-American, I don’t even understand today what that means. (And the website linked to isn’t loading, so I don’t have the context from that.)

I think you misunderstand my point. The ancestral post to this thread is pointing out that a normal worker in 1963 -- with probably just one income -- could support 5 children while owning 2 houses and 3 apartments. Then someone argues, more or less, that this is not possible only because we prioritize different today -- most likely referring to things like more education, more technology, better healthcare, etc.

My post, and the GP post I'm agreeing with, are saying that most of those aren't optional "lifestyle upgrades" that you choose instead of 5 children and 5 homes. Much of it, like education and technology, are requirements for getting and holding a normal job.

It's true that society has changed, but we are allowed to lament some of those changes without turning Amish. For example, I don't think that our technology and education is the main driver behind not being able to afford children and houses. Part of it is incompetent management of the housing market -- as someone once said, a house can be affordable or a good investment, but not both. Another part is that median income per person has not grown proportionally to GDP per capita since the 1960s, leading to a more extreme accumulation of wealth at the top, which is in turn entirely down to politics (e.g. an overcomplex tax code with plenty of loopholes).

If you're outside the US (like myself), the graphs arguably look a bit better, but there's still a lack of housing due to increased regulations on construction -- how energy efficient new houses should be, where you are allowed to build them, which old houses you are allowed to destroy to make room for new ones (for historical reasons), etc. In addition to the welfare states becoming less efficient over time, leading to less real income with less benefits from the state. (Which are not much better than inefficient monopolies in less socialist countries, to be fair.)

</end of political rant>

It really isn’t though. The median person in 1963 didn’t need say internet or computers or smartphones, because no one expected them to have one. Good luck even applying for a job today without at least a computer and internet, and possibly a smartphone capable of running very specific apps.

Don’t get me wrong, I love my computer, but as the GP indicated the rest of society expect very different things from you today – more equipment, more education, etc. Those things aren’t just increased living standards, they are increased job requirements.

I believe Haskell did that for decades before C++.

No one claimed that people just "love popping abortion pills". At least my reading of their comment is that these pills are considered dangerous to take alone in your bedroom, without monitoring and follow-up by health professionals, and are therefore expected by the health system to be used in a hospital setting. That sounded reasonable to me.

Not sure why you’re getting downvoted. The explanation sounds very reasonable.

Sounds very appealing. Anyone here have experience with it? If I want to try it, should I go print or digital? How is the writing compared to say The Economist or other more mainstream options?

> There are a few of these "maintainer said no AI pulls, so we forked it" in the wild already and I am really interested to see how it all pans out.

There are also forks that go in the other direction, i.e. forking to avoid AI contributions upstream: https://drewdevault.com/blog/Forking-vim/

And promises to do so if it becomes necessary: https://human-emacs.org/

Will indeed be interesting to see how it all pans out.