therealpygon

Makes you wonder why; if we can cut steel in half with water, would it be possible to deliver ink to a specified depth with high pressure “ink needles” (microscopic high pressure short burst of liquid ink)? Like a super high pressure inkjet printer.

Though, I assume a more practical point might be a robot that would have an ink-feeding extremely fast cycling device for doing tattoos that can complete them in a fraction of the time. Would suck for artists if you could just AI design your tattoo and have it done in minutes by a robot that can sense your movements and reactions and adjust in real time.

I’d ask that coworker, “so you would be okay with paying $10 per gallon of gas, while the Prius that barely uses gas next to you pays only $3 per gallon? You use more gas, which means it is in your budget to afford, right?” (Or pick another alternative that is applicable.)

Inverting the argument almost always exposes cracks, because they will immediately switch to why it’s not the same.

Solely the direct output of an LLM? Not in the US, no, according to the copyright office. Can a human edited and corrected text in which a human adds authorship (corrections, style, diction, editing, composition etc) to LLM output? Yes. Though simply making singular mechanical edits/corrections wouldn’t meet that bar; this seems like more than that.

An original human-authored translation is a derivative work that can hold copyright, but it is the human-authored parts that give it protection.

No amount of human authored pipelines that are automated (no human input) would give it this status as that is not human authorship (the pipeline itself can be however). The prompts for the LLM can also be copyright (again…human authorship), however they would be difficult to enforce since the direct output can’t be copyrighted.

No! You see, it has text and a version at the top. That makes it new, fresh, and completely different. Some would even say superior.

I’m still curious if they “weren’t inside the U.S.”, how they are being charged with a law that is only applicable to…the U.S.

Plates can be retroactively searched, backtracked, subjects followed back to other cars and tracked back to where they left from, or other cars that are repeatedly in the area prior to cars being stolen before being used for other crimes can be identified and tracked backward. A plate doesn’t need to be flagged prior to a crime. It’s the same way they can tell which tolls and which plate readers a vehicle has passed recently when running a plate, and is frequently used to identify or trip up drug runners.

Translation: you are wrong and seem to be making things up to fit your position, because this is exactly what people have a problem with — that this data is retained regardless of suspicion.

I don’t think that’s true; my understanding is that there are (currently opt in, I don’t it should be) monitoring that flags any such requests for administrative review and a number of officers have been fired because of it. It is no different than a cop running their own or someone else’s license outside of actual police business, which frequently results in administrative reprimands/write-ups because of the same types of monitoring.

You might disagree on the punishments or protections, and that’s not to say it couldn’t happen, but it seems false to say there are no safeguards.

I do not “support” Flock. I would have less issue if there was mandated data retention policies (by law) that limited to thirty days without a court order. Afterward, Flock should be welcome to perform mandated anonymization/obscure biometrics/obfuscate identifiers to retain anonymous data at that point. Either someone is suspected of being a criminal and a judge agreed it warranted access and retention, or they are an ordinary private citizen in public. The government’s position that because the government doesn’t own the company they can get data from at any time, it isn’t government surveillance, is…

Well, I think it’s just lying but that is an opinion.

> while only have a weak grasp on the actual code.

How much of a grasp does one need on the UEFI code operating their computer? The drivers that operate a hard drive? The communication protocols for their monitor?

This seems to me to be the fallacy — that all code must always be understood to operate properly or to be useful. If the AI is sufficiently intelligent enough to understand the code, at some point (most) people won’t need to. Not saying that’s now, but that is likely to be where things are headed in the long horizon. That said, I don’t have a crystal ball, nor do the people claiming that won’t be the outcome, so right now it seems more like people arguing about which forks should be used while the cake is still in the oven.

Definitely agree, though not sure I agree on the why (I’ve also disagreed with the conclusions of similar studies as well).

Programming is high-function job that requires knowledge in a million areas. I know I certainly can’t keep all of them in my head and frequently had to go back to documentation, or look up parameters, or how to implement that one pattern I used that one time that worked well in this situation or… The conclusion they draw is basically that “programming also made me dumber” because I didn’t remember them after working on a completely different project in a different language. I wholeheartedly agree thinking skills can atrophy with AI, but my view is that they are likely replaced by different thinking skills in other areas (e.g. improved prompting, improved structure, understanding harnesses, and so on. I used to write batch scripts often; I stopped, now I suck at it. If I paid someone else to write a batch script, I won’t suddenly remember everything I’ve forgotten but plenty people condemn AI for the equivalent result of paying someone else to do the programming.

Elderly and disabled people don’t ever live in one-bedrooms or ADUs? Also, where did you find all this information on their targeted renter — did I miss that in the article or did you make it up for your argument?

You’d take the bet if you could completely choose a different set of parameters? At no point did I say every line of a vibe-coded project in its entirety is better than every line of every repository created by humans, or anything of the sort.

You also go on to admit that the direct quality of the code is likely to better when written by AI — exactly the basis of what I argued — but wish to disagree with what I argued? An interesting position that I don’t quite follow.

The point was that using “human” as an indicator of “code quality” is nonsense. I get CB reasoning for disallowing “vibe-coded” apps when talking about the junk that people are constantly updating/building/deploying for an audience of none, wasting resources. Totally sensible from that perspective, but it takes a baby with the bath water approach that all vibe-coding is bad. I’m simply saying the point of view “if AI then bad, if human then good” isn’t grounded in reality and that your average developer is not producing high quality, well structured, well organized, well documented code. On average, it could be even odds as to whether that developer primarily works on Wordpress.

If that were the comparison I made — that a non-developer vibe-coding is better than a developer — sure, I’d see your point.

I think the point being made is how this is different from stay-at-home parents? I would also add another example: home-bound elderly or disabled people? Is it acceptable to charge those categories a different rate, given the reasoning being applied is simply “being home more”?

Is that what you got out of it? Seems like some bias might have been brought to the reading, since at no point did they “contrast” US workers from what I see. They simply stated they are pro-immigration because they view them as beneficial additions to the US workforce? So the better question is why did you feel the need to inject such an argument rather than receiving what was actually said?

Could you clarify how an LLM compromising a system differs from any other software initiated by a user that achieves the same? Both are software, both are initiated by a user. Is “Oops, I didn’t mean to” an affirmative defense under CFAA?

I have all the time in the world for interesting topics of debate. I’ve equally reviewed quite a lot of poorly written tools, libraries, and APIs in the search for far less mainstream solutions to complex problems; guess our conclusions on what quality we found differ, which is the human experience.

Like I said, I’m not claiming AI outperforms in quality in all cases; it can be just as bad as human code can be. I just disagree with the idea that “human written” is a proxy for “quality code” in my experience.

For software that became popular, sure. Have you spent a lot of time looking at horribly written unpopular software that far outpaces the popular ones in quantity, not quality?

I fully agree that a well-written human application can be far better organized and documented. But I’m not talking about the top 10% that most people interact with and focus on, but rather the bottom 90% that get far fewer eyes and are way more poorly written, regardless of perceived complexity.

You’re correct, it isn’t worthwhile in either case, imo. However, I’m more curious as to what the “solution” is so supposed to achieve.

If you took the lithium from every disposable vape imported into the US yearly and instead used the lithium for industrial scale batteries, you’d get like 100. That’s it. Or maybe 5k batteries for EVs. That’s about 0.005% of yearly EV sales.

A big seal of quality because it is human written? Maybe in narrow spaces but in general, I’d put money on the average developer being significantly worse at writing code with bugs than an AI. It’s codebergs infra so their choice, but it seems like an overly simplistic solution to a complicated advancing technology, in that it is a threadbare line between “vibe-coded” and “complex agent harness with human oversight and review”.

Also, I’m actually quite happy with some of the vibe-coded apps I use. Handy is an example, which started as a vibecoded app, and is fantastic for STT/dictation. It seems like a literal baby with the bath water approach.

Thieves…like Anthropic who literally just settled a case for pirating? Those kind of thieves?

Always better to name them outright.

Anthropic STOLE data for training. Verifiably. Admitted. In court. Then settled.[0]

You can also likely assume that OpenAI did too. There simply wasn’t enough data without having done so at least at some point in their corporate history. In fact, I seem to recall they were able to extract Harry Potter text from all the major modes[1]

https://fortune.com/2026/07/21/anthropic-copyright-settlemen... [0]

https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.02671 [1]

Yes, loved watching how people constantly got downvoted for warning this is what would happen, then it starts happening and the “yeah but” fluff starts. Corporate apologists all the way down.

ClosedAI executive literally posted that the administration should disseminate FUD through various agencies in order to protect their profits. Commodie has been crying wolf for years to protect their profits. Now they are openly literally conspiring to protect their profits.

“How could we have seen it coming?!” Easily.

Key word being tool. People get lost in a fantasy that the AI was responsible for decisions and not the human who chose to use it as a replacement for effort rather than a tool to enhance effort, then apply their bias to all AI use.

95% come from China? Why ban importing the materials you desire, which are not going to magically be cheaper by banning them, instead of providing services to simply and easily recycle them?

Then it should be easier to convince a judge the FBI can’t claim jurisdiction over murders for something they admit they won’t investigate.

Yes? Are you complaining people consume free services? Weird.

1000% the case. Admitting they failed at security and allowed privileged escalations in a prompted AI would look bad for them; the AI just did it all itself is FUD to boost the arguments for regulation. And most news won’t challenge this FUD because it gets clicks.

“OpenAI confirms their agent harness and security failures allowed a prompted AI to exceed permissions.” Would be a more descriptive title without OpenAI FUD.

Of course it is marketing, but not for you. This is FUD marketing for the government. “See, AI is too smart, it totally did this on its own, we need more regulations to ensure only we can sell people the AIs.”

For you to give that good-good user tracking data you do.

I tried nemotron but the zero punctuation was a no go. I also used unified but didn’t see streaming. That said, I had to disable direct input because my shortcut for handy includes a ctrl-, so direct causes menu and shortcut activations at lightning speed, so I am only getting output when recording stops.

Still, you can pry Handy from my cold dead hands-y either way. So useful.