Ariarule

I don't completely like or think this is a good ultimate decision, but looking over the thread on Github, it's being done for practical rather than ideological reasons after trying a more liberal policy first, and the discussion thread there indicates that they're already considering how to relax and refine it. A long-term and total ban on AI contributions would be a mistake as it all but guarantees a competitor or a fork, beside enforcability issues that create a "now you have two problems" situation. But as a temporary stop gap as specifically indicated by https://github.com/qgis/QGIS-Enhancement-Proposals/pull/387#... this seems fine, and it's such important context that "QGIS bans AI assisted contributions" is true but misleading.

The linked discussion thread specifically calls this a "moratorium" and it's unfortunate that they decided not include that explanation in the policy document specifically to avoid controversy and flak, with the end result that there's now a 202-comment-plus HN thread: https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-developer/2026-Septem... -- the "proof of life" concept being tossed around in that thread, although rejected, is genuinely interesting and I hope they revisit it and allow a nominal financial contribution to the project to prove a human is behind a PR regardless of AI assistance (probably along with some other approach, as a total exclusion and the only way it would also be bad).

My own experience with QGIS is limited to the most basic navigation and queries of some local maps I've archived. Nonetheless it's an obvious gem and I hope they're able to arrive at a balanced and sustainable policy. Maybe they would get there faster and more reliably by tightening the previous LLVM-inspired policy rather than the slam-shut and then loosen approach they seem to be taking, but hardly anyone has experience with a situation exactly like this, so only time will really tell.

The previous top comment is trivial findable with a page search for "AI". Contrarian dynamic could explain why the reactions overall look more positive now, fair enough; I'll keep in mind it's possible to give an incorrect impression in the future as a result of the comment order shifting.

When I made my comment yesterday, the previous top comment was negative and dismissive, and for a vacuous reason. Why not reply directly instead? I decided it would be better to positively _appreciate the original work done in itself_, to not boost a vapid debate from a eye-rolling starting point, not to make it personal towards anyone, and especially, as it is actually the greater portion of that comment you quote, to make an analogy to other techniques.

And then I get this useless advice to "give it a rest", as if there were no such negative reaction in the first place, no such parallel drawn between older work and newer work, and as if the counterfactual of what would happen if people were not willing to appreciate such works was not immediate obvious. If there were a substantial contingent on HN claiming that projects done on Apple devices were somehow not real, and trying to shout down Mac-based projects, it would indeed be very tiring, but the problem would not be with people musing on parallels to similar workflows in Linux environments to highlight and acknowledge when a project done on a Mac was good work, nor with Apple fans!

Wonderful work, and it's unfortunate that knee-jerk anti-AI sentiment is getting in the way of appreciation for the accomplishment by some others. Consider this: if the exact same oddities and anomalies had been discovered 3 to 5 years ago with traditional NLP, or OCR and/or some clever statistical techniques, would anyone be dismissing it? The post goes into the work they did to orchestrate and explore with the AI in this case, so it's no less impressive an effort than the hypothetical, and the discoveries just as valid for consideration.

I do not, in fact, see such an unambiguous, unhedged claim in OP. Can you quote it?

Ha! It is actually _some_ funny serendipity. I just stumbled across this in my saved pile and thought it would be an interesting oldie to share, and did not realize that release was going to be today at all until I saw these comments here now.

It was actually submitted three days ago originally. I don't know if whoever second-chanced it had the timing with the new game in mind, so it may or may not be a complete coincidence that way.

Amazon says it's in stock right now. Costco also has it online and says it's on the shelf at my local warehouse.

It was literally available from the first two places I checked.

Due to the HN length limitation, it was necessary to abbreviate the title. Originally: "AI Film ‘Gods Don’t Give Gifts’ Sets First Trailer for December Theatrical Run, Plans Oscar Bid for Best Animated Feature".

Always glad to see more open-weight models, but this caption on the 2nd demo image had me do a double-take: "Land or Water Generalization Experiment: We recreated the viral X puzzle by asking Beam to create a fixed 180×90 grid for longitudes -179° to 179° and latitudes -89° to 89°, with 16,200 points. This puzzle is a few days old, so could not appear in the training data, thus testing the model’s generalization. Beam gets 95.5% coverage right, putting us between Opus 5 (92.5%) and Fable 5 (97.8%), which shows how well it generalizes to novel new tasks."

Oof, no, this "puzzle is a few days old" is incorrect even if it's a social media trend just recently. Asking a model to generate a world map in this way is _at least_ from August 2025 as it appeared on LessWrong at that time: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/xwdRzJxyqFqgXTWbH/how-does-a...

No byline, acknowledging that it's part of series that usually doesn't have them. Google trends has nothing for the phrase right now. UD, as of this writing, never heard of the expression (although don't be too surprised if someone swoops in to "correct" that later). Even for a generation that's ostensibly not going to have a huge social media footprint yet, that's rather remarkable for a supposed "biggest insult".

https://trends.google.com/explore?q=%22That%27s%20so%20AI%22... https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=That%27s+so+...

Ok, if they're meant to be marketed for food service, like a bakery regardless of who actually purchases them, then that does makes sense.

Huh? Processed ingredients don't generally get a pass on nutritional labeling requirements in the US. A bag of flour in a grocery store should have a label.

That is also the title I see clicking through into the page, although it seems to be 24 characters over the limit, so that _some_ change to OP would have have been required to submit it.