fluoridation

I'd forgotten why I'd stopped commenting here. Thanks for reminding me, everyone.

Sounds like a cushy job. Why would you want to leave?

I mean, if they're illegal immigrants, it seems to me a country has the right to deport them. Maybe not the best way to phrase the sentiment, but taken literally it's not an incorrect idea.

Shit fast and soil things.

There is. You don't have to use the AI for everything just because you could.

"Conin" derives from "coniculus", which is what "conejo" derives from, so that makes all three words cognates, since they share a common origin.

Isn't the point of the concept to point out that they're not arbitrary?

I think the key is balance. Just because you can delegate everything, doesn't mean you should. In some cases, I've found, I simply can't. I have an idea for something I want, but I don't yet know what the best solution should be, and I need to find that out by working through the code myself.

Another thing to consider is what are you trying to accomplish. If you are just coding for fun then why would you hand that off to an LLM? If you want to see if an idea is even worth pursuing then it makes sense to leverage an LLM to speed up the prototyping.

Counterpoint: I'm the same way, and the last couple weeks I've been messing more with Qwen more and I've been more productive in my pet projects than I had been in months or perhaps years, because I'm no longer blocked by having to do the boring bits I didn't want to do before. I now have a well-read junior I can hand tasks off to while I work on something else or just mess around until I get to the next interesting bit. Just to name one example, one of my projects includes a file browser, and a feature I had put off for years was adding an item count on the status bar, which took like a couple minutes of prompting Qwen (and then a few more minutes to figure out the crash).

Training a human takes much less money and data than training an LLM. Even if I spent my entire life doing it, I would not be able to read the entire corpus of any LLM, even counting just the English subset. LLMs need so much more because they start out as blank slates, while we don't.

What they're saying should change is that the Debug trait should be added to structs by default, instead of having to be explicitly specified.

Pretty sure what is meant by "lazily" is that it should just be added by default and then those that are not used should be optimized away by the linker.

I do this for control+alt+F1. Knuckle+thumb+middle finger. Also control+W: knuckle+middle finger. I, too, thought was the only one.

I've done it. I don't agree that it's therapeutic.

Your behavior is even stranger than that which you are questioning. The fact you take the time to type out the response means you also feel the urge to respond, and that urge is strong enough that you don't stop yourself before starting, even though you know you are likely to just delete before sending. It's odd that you would ask why someone would reply to a comment when you should already understand why someone would do that: because they feel the same urge you do, and don't have the compulsion to stop themselves before sending.

Why did that have to be transported in a thumb drive? It can't have been more than a few hundred megabytes at the most, right?

Yeah, I think the ideal AI user for coding is the one who is not so ignorant that they can't even explain what they want done, but not so knowledgeable that they could simply do it themselves. It's like a crutch: if you don't have legs it's completely useless, but it can let you hobble around if yours don't work perfectly, and if they do work then it's also pretty much useless.

I'm pretty sure the company that owns the compute is the one paying for the power. Who would agree to have an ugly noisy cube in their property that they have to pay maintenance for? What would they get out of that deal?

It didn't work. DeepSeek failed to load on LM Studio due to a tensor format error. I don't have the time to do deeper troubleshooting. Qwen 3.8 Next did work, but the performance was abysmal.

Thanks, I'll give that a try. I basically have the same use case, only on Strix Halo.

Interesting, I had assumed it'd be too large to fit. What quant and context size are you running?

It's also possible if contributors agree to waive rights to their contributions, thus having multiple contributors and a single rights holder.

Correct. We can either accept the claim or disregard it. The comment I replied to opted to accept it and then committed a fallacy, hence my response.

Okay, but the anecdote states that every model repeated the pseudo-factoid about Foobar square, not just the 4 GB open source model equivalent of a tabloid.

Yes, of that I'm sure. This optimization is only possible if the compiler has control of both sides of a call. If the function may be callable from other translation units or modules I imagine it generates a thin wrapper that's externally callable.

No, silly. If you pray for something and it comes true then praise be to god; if it doesn't then you did it wrong.

N/RVO works by (at the machine language level, of course) rewriting the function signature to return void and take an extra pointer parameter, which is written to before returning. If you're returning a newly-constructed object, the compiler can rewrite that into calling the constructor on the pointer, but if you're returning a named object, the class may have a non-trivial destructor that needs to run after the move, such that it's not possible to rewrite uses of the local object into uses of the pointer.

I'm not too confident on that last part, because such an implementation would mess with semantics in case of an exception, so anyone feel free to correct me on that.

Unfortunately, I don't think there's getting away from just understanding value semantics to get the correct and/or performant behavior.

So they go for a wildly shitty LLM translation?

>It's reference material of all sorts. Technical books, manuals, software localizations, etc.

Yes, I covered that under "formulaic content". As I've already said, a lot of this was already done decades ago. East Asian manuals and copies using machine translation are kind of a meme. Human translators are not losing any work from this. These are all businesses that were never going to employ a translator to begin with; it was either machine translation or nothing.

>Second, you vastly overestimate the desire that book publishers have to pay for good translations. I've seen books from reputable European publishers that were (badly) machine-translated by a contracted translator keen to dig their own grave. Yes, Harry Potter will get a good translation, but 1,000 lesser books won't.

Well, you're not citing any examples, so you you don't give me much to work with. I haven't read a translated book in ages (I don't think), but I do move in circles where translations, human- and machine-made, are freely distributed, and people kick up a fuss over machine translations that they didn't even have to pay for. I can't imagine a paying reader being any kinder upon realizing that they're traded their hard-earned money for machine-produced nonsense. You yourself admit that the translator who does this is digging their own grave. How is this not a problem that corrects itself?