sincerely

I think “made” is probably fine, but it does bug me to see “I built/coded…” to describe a vibecoded project

They clearly have at least a decent bit in the tank bc whenever either lab releases a new update, the other one matches benchmarks in like 24h

> or against their TOS e.g. not a fanwork

Isn’t there an “original work” category?

Egregious & consistent mistreatment of the horses.

The past four mayors have all tried to end the practice but the jockeys (drivers?) are part of a powerful transportation union.

Isn’t archive.today notorious for doing exactly what you describe

"Oh darn, you know that thing I made and released with explicit, precise language defining who can use it and what, if any, restrictions apply? Well now someone is using it in complete accordance with those conditions I set out, and that's somehow making me upset"

The “hacker” community (for lack of a better term) has a longstanding and well documented skepticism towards the concept of intellectual property in general. “Information wants to be free” and all that.

Let he who has not downloaded from Annas Archive cast the first stone

Some people still make wood furniture by hand too. Do what makes you happy. Just don't get caught up insisting that you deserve to be paid for it.

If anyone wants to know more about the chess model: https://lczero.org/blog/2024/12/the-leela-piece-odds-challen...

You can choose which piece it's missing. It's humbling to lose starting up a queen

A much better article about the phenomenon: https://open.substack.com/pub/ramble/p/the-tang-dynasty-was-...

I must be illiterate. Ofc. Sorry

edit: totally wrong

I’m not even sure what would be gained by formal verification of a GUI

Well there is no “roof rule” on the page they linked

Are there any other self-guided online university level CS courses like this?

Well there are plenty of places that aren’t in anyone’s backyard

LLM spam account

Who is "we"? Lol

I would be surprised if, in the "mature" future of AI tools/products, the labs building the models are also selling/building to end users like they are now.

>I think I'm at 1 success out of 15 attempts for Gemini to explain how to do something in Google Sheets/Docs, though, so I'm not hopeful that anyone can actually implement this.

People love to talk about this as one of the helpful features of AI (knowledge extraction from documents/summarizing), but I'm really not convinced. The last generation of models seem to have 70-90% accuracy on tasks like this, which is way below what i'd consider a reliable tool

e.g. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/digital-health/articles...

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11197181/

I don't know if there are any benchmarks for this sort of task, maybe the new ones are improved but I also doubt that people are using GPT5.5 pro ultrathink for these tasks anyways

This post is full of AI flair unfortunately

This is quite interesting, but the blatantly AI generated explanations are like an anti-signal for quality

Me explaining to a teacher why i cheated on the test: well did you stop to consider the cognitive load of doing the problems myself and how much easier it was to cheat?

I can’t agree more, this “our software is open source but we have unwritten rules about how you can use it or we’ll attempt to shame you” attitude is absurd

I think they're talking about conjectures that are unproven but seem "likely true" and people build further math off the assumption. E.G Reimann hypothesis

This is exhaustively covered in the article

Not a problem if they're offering unlimited, lol

Just like me :)

This comment seems addressed to the portion of the population that both doesn’t know how to safely buy illegal drugs and also is able to determine which drug sellers are reputable. i can only assume this is an extremely small amount of people

AI slop account