tluyben2

Congrats! Mine just turned 17 and I just modernised it a bit. Happy clients for almost 2 decades. No unicorns but still a nice fuzzy feeling. Keep going for the next 10 years!

Personally I wanted to see if this llama can generate the required docker files to run itself just from pasting in the instructions from the my parent commenter and asking for docker/docker-compose. It did and it works.

Popped it into a docker setup:

https://github.com/tluyben/llamafile-docker

to save even more keystrokes.

My wife participates in it every year (for many years); in october she gets the outline done, then in november she writes the book, in december she has editors go over it and she publishes during the next year. The productivity of just saying 'this month is fully for writing' and sticking to a minimum word count really has been a very productive mechanism.

This type of regulatory would be better than 'stop' or making all kinds of expensive rules that only big corps can follow.

I guess if you are not very sure that 0.13% false positives is correct then these are going to make things worse rather than better as people will be accused of cheating.

Example;

“If we work in a particular matrix basis, then the equation determines the eigenvectors of H. One puts in a particular value of the energy E, and looks for the ket-vector Ej> that solves the equation. It is also an equation that determines the eigenvalues E. If you put in an arbitrary value of E, in general there will not be a solution for the eigenvector. Let's take a very simple example: Suppose the Hamiltonian is the matrix ho.. Since , has only two eigenvalues, namely +1, the Hamiltonian also has only two eigenvalues, + hw. If you put any other value on the right hand side of Eq. 4.28, there will not be a solution. Because the operator H represents energy, we often call E, the energy eigenvalues and |E> the energy eigenvectors of the system.”

You say 96% AI; it’s definitely not; it’s from “ Quantum Mechanics: The Theoretical Minimum” by Friedman and Susskind.

Worse even;

“If we have some indications that classical wave theory is macroscopically correct. it is nevertheless clear that on the microscopic scale only the corpuscular theory of light is able to account for typical absorption and scattering phenomena such as the photoelectric effect and the Compton effect, respectively. One must still ascertain how the photon hypothesis may be reconciled with the essential wave-like phenomena of interference and diffraction.”

Hits 99.9% while it is from Messiah, written 60 years or so ago.

I can generate by gpt4 and rewrite with another model. Asking gpt4 to write in another style also works.

For instance the following gives 0% on both of our tools; it’s gpt4;

"Well, sit tight folks, I'll tell you. It's like my mother always said, 'Ceilings are generally over our heads.' What I mean is, the material for my jokes come from what's above us, below us - essentially, what's around us. And let me tell you, there's plenty going on.

Just the other day, I was stuck in traffic behind a bloke in a convertible... in the rain... with the top down. Now if that doesn't scream 'commitment issues', I don't know what does.

Well, either that or he's got a very specific car washing technique. In which case, mate, you're doing it all wrong! My car gets a better wash in the British summer rain than that."

Ah yeah, I made a few of those as well when gpt just arrived [0]. It won’t work long term anyway and they are easy to trick, but it’s fun.

[0] https://filteroutai.com/validate/3cc1fb35453a6decd5aee9ac6fd...

From the below examples;

https://filteroutai.com/validate/485406e894dde52ff1395dfd577...

https://filteroutai.com/validate/983ba46510487b0022e8dbafe49...

Replaced it with Joplin a year ago. Very happy paying user.

> Why isn’t your computer a Turing Machine?

The Turing Machine tape is infinite.

The problem is that although the creator is gifted, he seems to not have much theoretical PL design knowledge. That is an issue for something as complex as this; this automatic memory management without a GC is cutting edge research and we don't know if we can make it work without making sacrifices like Rust did. You have to sacrifice something and that means while you won't have to worry about memory management, the work for the programmer becomes harder. Or just use a GC.

FYI The book for the language; https://www.t3x.org/klong/book.html

I don’t care which language it is, but pick one as the official one. English makes sense economically. German cannot happen because the past. Spanish or German or French are all fine, but of course it cannot be agreed on. So English makes it easier as well for that reasons maybe.

Same on Safari Mac OS X.

Once you get used to it, it's just faster and stop noticing the 'oh line noise' thing. But like learning a natural language, you need to get to the point where you stop translating in your head and you think in the operators. Once you reach that, it is very hard to go back.

Not golf; that’s the norm. Makes things easier to fit a page without scrolling and looks/feels more like programming in k.

https://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Essays/Incunabulum

How long did you try? And what languages do you use?

How can it be realistically shut down? There is too much cat-out-of-bag and many countries in the world won’t give a crap about whatever the west wants. So the west continues or falls behind. What is the discussion even here?

Yes, and that with smart glasses seems interesting.

I am not the author , just a contributor, but it would not be very hard to add.

I added whisper to that (was merged) so you can talk to it as well.

To add to the list, this one is pretty good;

https://github.com/razetime/ngn-k-tutorial

As said by others: you should reconsider and learn the symbols or k or j or Klong which use your normal keyboard. In k there are very few commands and it won’t take you long to learn them and in your head, at first, say things like 5 cut range 9 etc. You don’t notice after a while, like a natural language sinking in, that you don’t do this anymore and the symbols just ‘arrive’ instead; you will find patterns and type idioms faster than it would take you to look up (let alone learn how to use it etc) the npm in js let’s say. At that time you would not really enjoy not having mastered symbols but words instead.

Also, nothing keeps you from implementing names functions in k or j out of the 1 letter ones;

     3#!9 / original

    0 1 2 

     take:{x#y} / or take:# 
     take[3;!9] / 1 readable function

    0 1 2 

     range:{!x} / or range:!:
     take[3;range[9]] / all readable functions
  
    0 1 2

     take[3] range[9]
 
    0 1 2 

In k. You can make a readable lib, but I wouldn’t.

It’s a nice and powerful family of languages with lisp, scheme, clojure etc. Just because people who don’t have experience have the ‘ewwww parens’ reaction when they see it, it’s not used a lot. Similar to APL families (modern versions should be relevant to ML: numpy etc are basically APLs with different syntax).

I personally believe everyone should try different paradigms and languages even if you never use them. First of all it will help you see patterns later on, which results on learning whatever programming language in a very short time when you need it. And it opens your eyes to how powerful some of them are, and even to get most out of your ‘day job’ language.

There was someone on Twitter who was programming c# fulltime for a decade or so, and didn’t know you could ‘int i=0; for(;i<x;i++)’. Then the comments saying ‘oh I thought that was only c/c++’. That is a fundamental lack of understanding; how do they think this works? Magic? When you have seen many languages, you discover interesting properties that are normal in other languages but still possible and actually beneficial in your most used one. Lisp/Scheme deepdives are known to give this type of insight that will stay with the professional developer forever, making them better, not necessarily using Lisp.

Larry Ellison used to put a lot of money in it, not sure if it's still the case.

It'll come back; this happened a bunch of times before.

Thanks, someone definitely was 'inspired' by the other. But yes, it looks impressive so far.

Somewhere else in this thread I asked for the list of licenses as I see most of these products keep the parts with the most work closed or under a license that many companies won’t touch (agpl or n2n license). It seems that almost everything is MIT; that is pretty refreshing for something like this. Check alternative solutions and you’ll find trivial parts open sourced and the hard parts proprietary or unusable in other software because of the license choice.

Kudos to the team of total.js. Who cares if they offer some paid stuff; because of the MIT license anyone can. If they don’t do it, someone else can and offer it all the same. As long as vital parts remain MIT, I cannot see how this is a proprietary software operation.

Tl;dr I agree with you, but I don’t see that being the case here

Is this related to Illa somehow? The UI builder looks very familiar.

Nice work. Is there an overview of which components are oss and which are not?