toasteros

Github repo contributors are not hidden.

eg: https://github.com/FuriLabs/rootfs-templates/graphs/contribu...

It uses halium and libhybris. Flatpak apps work perfectly fine on my FLX1. I have no usability issues with the phone at all.

Sometimes. My feet don't have a random chance to send me in a random direction to that which I intend.

...you can do that with a pencil, though.

What an impossibly weird thing to "need" an LLM for.

If you haven't read it yourself how do you know that the LLM is correct?

I always want to donate more to open source projects but as far as I know there aren't any I can get tax credits for in Canada. My budget is strapped just enough that I can't quite afford to donate for nothing.

Any Canadian residents here know of any tax credit eligible software projects to donate to?

LLMs literally only tell you what you want to hear. They are Dunning-Krueger machines.

Ask it about something you don't know: you'll learn something new.

Ask it about something you do know: you'll raise your eyebrow, "huh that's not quite right..."

The current administration is using LLMs which are telling them to instruct the NSA not to talk about privilege escalation.

I addressed that: bad policies and decisions don't go away just because of LLMs. They will always exist, it's just that now they'll exist at the same time as people gaslighting themselves into believing that LLMs are helping to eliminate them.

Ignoring the fact that this comment is literally nihilist and simultaneously anti-natalist (read: you are simply advocating for the elimination of the human race)... yes I addressed that.

> Now you'll likely come back and say "but X policy was bad and it was because it was poorly researched". Absolutely! Yes, bad policies exist. Poorly researched policies exist. Poorly implemented policies exist.

> Good policies researched well also exist. And the bad ones aren't going away because of the magical word generator.

You will notice that the US is gearing up for additional warfare with the help of AI.

Really? How have policies been made for the past hundred years without it then?

It's completely bonkers that people keep saying stuff like this, virtually implying that we didn't have a functional society before LLMs.

LLMs are tools that generate word salads that sound compelling. They are not research aids and they can't help you understand things better than the plethora of tools we already developed over the centuries can.

So no, the alternative is policy makers doing what policy makers have always done: research, polling, reading, talking, and more research.

Now you'll likely come back and say "but X policy was bad and it was because it was poorly researched". Absolutely! Yes, bad policies exist. Poorly researched policies exist. Poorly implemented policies exist.

Good policies researched well also exist. And the bad ones aren't going away because of the magical word generator.

Seriously. Stop using LLMs to "help" you do stuff you already know how to do.

Not to mention that the radicalisation and terrorism USAID helped prevent from fomenting has likely saved the US many trillions in rebuilding efforts and healthcare.

The poem won't be unique. It will follow a basic formula and make sure to pick up the words you asked it to use. You might not get the exact same poem every single time, but there's a reason that you can tell when something has been generated.

A good recent example are the lyrics of the songs on an album by a band called Saor. The album is called Amidst the Ruins.

That's because you're beginning with the assertion that LLMs are tools. You cannot create things with an LLM. You can't be creative with them. They are not useful for building things. What you get out of an LLM is a regurgitation of existing information, peppered with assumptions based on your query.

They're not tools.

A hammer helps you build a house. An LLM helps you read StackOverflow in the most inefficient means possible.

This very much sounds like you would consider asking a Subway employee for a sandwich to be 'cooking'...

You have to remember that fascism's application of othering is not logical, it's just a convenient method of gaining leverage. The Nazis targeted Jews because it was easy to weave a narrative about them, and because their population within Germany itself was so small that it was electorally inconsequential to victimise them. You see this with the Musk-Trump regime's position on trans people; trans people are not a threat to anyone, and are so few in number that you can easily weave a narrative about them and use it to push a more extreme agenda.

You are absolutely correct that modern Nazis are not really bothered by the Jews, but you have to remember that fascists just look for easy targets to hate.

Essentially, yeah, fine, he's not a card carrying member of the NSDAP. But he's a hateful individual pursuing a hateful agenda all the same, and he did the salute to signal to edgelords that he sees them.

> Somehow, there is no such thing as left wing edge lord.

Your comment is absolutely correct; Musk and his ilk are just people who "joked around" on 4chan and essentially radicalised themselves doing it.

HOWEVER left wing edgelords absolutely exist. Look up (at your peril) the phenomenon of "tankies". They're not your average communist, but rather apologists for Stalin's genocides.

Maybe your comment is more about the terminology at play, but it's interesting to see that the left wing mirror image of the average 4chan poster absolutely exists.

I guess you're right, "garbage" would be a better term, but this appropriately places it in the right category.

I'm cool with using the word Deepfake for text. Generated text should generally be referred to in the derogatory, considering it very rarely adds anything of value.

I'm interested to hear more about how you can verify information without a source. What are you looking at when you search for the verification, exactly?

You made a new account just to post this; I'm flattered! Perhaps your normal account is tied to your professional identity?

Do take care.

How?

It's given you some information and now you have to seek out a source to verify that it's correct.

Finding information is hard work. It's why librarian is a valuable skilled profession. What you've done by suggesting that I should "verify" or "proofread" what a glorified, water-wasting Markov chain has given me now entails me looking up that information to verify that it's correct. That's...not quite doubling the work involved but it's adding an unnecessary step.

I could have searched for the source in the first instance. I could have gone to the library and asked for help.

We spent time coming up with a question ("prompt engineering"! hah!), we used up a bunch of electricity for an answer to be generated and now you...want me to search up that answer to find the source? Why did we do the first step?

People got undergraduate degrees - hell, even PhDs - before generative AI.

Look up the tweet from someone who said "Sometimes when coming up with a good prompt for ChatGPT, I sometimes come up with the answer myself without needing to submit".

At that point why not just... I dunno, do the research yourself?

The assertion is that they "learned" that Bitcoin came from Occupy from an AI.

If AI is teaching you, you are going to collect a thousand papercuts of lies.

No DP through the USB-C port right now, no. I believe it's missing from the hardware.

It's a little frustrating because "Convergence" options are exposed in the UI.

Are you sure it's helped you learn?

In the early days of ChatGPT where it seemed like this fun new thing, I used it to "learn" C. I don't remember anything it told me, and none of the answers it gave me were anything that I couldn't find elsewhere in different forms - heck I could have flipped open Kernighan & Ritchie to the right page and got the answer.

I had a conversation with an AI/Bitcoin enthusiast recently. Maybe that already tells you everything you need to know about this person, but to the hammer the point home, they made a claim to similar to you: "I learn much more and much better with AI". They also said they "fact check" things it "tells" them. Some moments later they told me "Bitcoin has its roots in Occupy Wall Street".

A simple web search tells you that Bitcoin is conceived a full 2 years before Occupy. How can they be related?

It's a simple error that can be fact checked simply. It's a pretty innocuous falsity in this particular case - but how many more falsehoods have they collected? How do those falsehoods influence them on a day-by-day basis?

How many falsehoods influence you?

A very well meaning activist posted a "comprehensive" list of all the programs that were to be halted by the grants and loans freezes last week. Some of the entries on the list weren't real, or not related to the freeze. They revealed they used ChatGPT to help compile the list and then went down one-by-one to verify each one.

With such meticulous attention to detail, incorrect information still filtered through.

Are you sure you are learning?

"Pretty neat, but definitely watch out for hallucinations."

We'd never hire someone who just makes stuff up (or at least keep them employed for long). Why are we okay with calling "AI" tools like this anything other than curious research projects?

Can't we just send LLMs back to the drawing board until they have some semblance of reliability?

The Furiphone FLX1 makes heavy use of this and it is amazing. I can do most things I'd want a real android phone for (which is not much, admittedly). I know of people who use it for Signal and Spotify. Great project, and right at home on a Linux phone.

No actually just write your own commit messages. Generally speaking, just write your own stuff.

Good lord. Two areas we really do not want AI in its current form touching somehow put together in one convenient little package.

I don't know much about Axios. Can you elaborate on what the clear motivation is?