x-complexity
2) You're targeting to the wrong person. Blame the managers at Netscape for pushing Brendan Eich into creating JS, rather than letting him use Scheme as the scripting language. From there, it would've made sense to allow Scheme to be compiled into bytecode.
A fun game isn't made when you're working on the engine & tech.
It is only made when everywhere else has been done, & when the feedback mechanisms are tightened. This will never happen in the prototyping stage, because the point is to make the thing exist in the first place.
------
This comment is the same Reddit-style one-off critique that makes no actual sense when placed at the grindstone, made by people that have never actually tried to make one with OR without.
Because even if vibecoded, the initial work has already been done, and it would be absolutely foolish to outright dismiss it just because it doesn't meet puritanical standards.
> How is any of this serious?
It isn't & shouldn't be. The upfront demand for "serious" is what kills public projects in the first place, where they all come from an experimentation perspective.
There is no public project out there that (from its first commit) was fully serious: Each & every one of them were offshoots & experiments, testing to see if the thing was possible in the first place.
Japan can largely ignore its public debt because its mostly owned by the Japanese themselves, and thus contained within the nation & erodible via inflation.
Most other countries are restricted from doing this due to the massive foreign ownership of national debt, & ending up in hands/firms/governments outside of their nation.
The value adds (from the view of humans wanting it) come from:
1) a human understanding concept X & thus can communicate about X; or
2) finding alternate routes to X that make it easier for humans to get there.
(1) is human-centric & thus non-replaceable, since the requirement of a human is what gives it the value add.
(2) is similar to how there can be many paths to deriving the Pythagorean theorem. None of the existing paths devalue the others, but they each allow those with different perspectives to reach the same destination.
The given X should be subjected to the requirements necessary to create a valid Y. If the requirements fail, you have two main choices: Create an invalid Y, or reject X & return an error in however you want it to be returned.
The former leaks said rejections throughout the rest of the type's/object's code, & makes more work for me to parse through where & how the problem occurs.
The latter option creates a cleaner system altogether, due to rejecting sections of invalid states. Not all will be rejected, but the fact that some do get rejected already makes its workload comparatively lighter than the former.
I know which my lazy bum would pick.
It is make like better. You're just invested in ripping out others' tools for your own satisfaction.
> Maybe even go as far as to ban usage of AI in certain cases, everything should be on the table, the public already hates AI, it just needs to be fanned and directed well.
The difference between this & the backdrop of Dune is near 0, with its issues clearly outlined in the book: You want the system that existed in the 2010s to remain as-is & ossified for your personal enjoyment.
...Or you can keep working on your handbags & refine your styles & qualities, using your expertise & experience as value adds.
The existence of the factory did not wipe out the boutique craftsman.
> > A craft I enjoy doing has been taken away from me, I should be allowed to mourn, I don't care that I can do something else since I never liked doing it in the first place.
A craft wasn't ripped away from you: The process still exists as-is in its prior form, like the woodcarvers of yesteryear. Nothing that you desire (the process/journey) has been lost. It still exists.
The only step required to restore it is to ignore the contributions of others that use it. And your desire to do so will be valid & consistent.
But similarly as to how you want to be validated on your feelings of 'the craft being ripped from you', you don't get to impose that belief onto others to rip their use of LLMs away from them if they want to do so, lest you want to invalidate their feelings as a consequence.
SOTA only provides agents that are easier to manage. Such agents will likely also be made available in open models, as it is primarily a post-training issue.
Even if it never comes, the best open models are already capable of performing these tasks.
Protect IP from what? The fundamentals of the situation have not changed. The only difference now is that the models are doing the work.
Replace 'models' with 'humans', and you get bog-standard RE. The models just accelerated the timeline where this scenario would've happened.
The solution you propose already exists in its primitive form: It's called Section 1201 of the DMCA. What you're asking for extends that protection to the whole program, not just the DRM, and thus killing all of reverse engineering altogether.
------
Copyright as it exists is no different than real estate: Landowners extracting rent from properties they own, in exchange for promises on routine maintenance & upgrades.
What we have now is a machine that can look at a building & remake it to at least 90+% similarity, given enough iterations.
And we're discussing about banning the machine.
Then the mod must be loaded & run on the server's end, with its logic enforced on all players on that server. The client shouldn't have free reign over the server's internal logic & state.
The one exception to this are visual mods that modify the presentation. But even then I'm skeptical, as modifying the presentation layer can affect the decisions that X makes, or even worse, give them an unfair advantage that other players should also have if X has them.
When the structure ossifies, converting the structure into its tabular representation makes sense.
------
Every single other comment here shitting on the choices made act as if their commits have always been perfect first try, with no need for modifications or improvements.
When the demands of your target customers constantly shift & have not yet been ossified, the optimizations made early in its process more often than not bite back hard & painful.
This assumes that they're throwing money at the problem, and that said money encounters no leeches in the process.
Meta glasses are a terrible example for the case you're making a point about: 90+% of whatever video they'll capture will be trash data.
It'd be much more efficient to set up dedicated sites just for producing the very same training data you're claiming they harvest.
Need a specific feature? Plug that in later when you actually need it.
Even under your premise, the framework that helps agents get there faster is the better framework, programming capabilities notwithstanding.
Even if the source code's old, the fact that it is publicly available makes it much easier to train & improve on than if it were walled off.
...There's an argument to be made that the average modern human is too cowardly to be capable of butchering their own meat.
Is that true? ...Unfortunately, there's a non-zero proportion of people that will fit that mold. But I hope that it isn't the case for at least 90% of the population.
> 3) Many of these pallets may sit for years before being sorted, and many of the books may sit for years before being sold, but these things actually do eventually happen, valuable books are found, and they eventually make their way to interested readers, this is the business model of used bookstores. Most books of value don't get destroyed or thrown away.
This contradicts base reality, as the vast majority of the books in such cases were already queued to be pulped.
> Destroying human art, knowledge, and culture is an essential part of the business plan for frontier labs, it is not enough to steal and regurgitate all the art and information in the world, you also want to make it inaccessible through any other means than the regurgitation machine.
Even if Anthropic wanted to make the books publicly available as a form of moralwashing, they legally can't do that. Their current process rides the line of fair use, in that it obeys the requirement of medium shifting to be considered legally defensible.
Don't like the outcome? Change the law to allow for digital archival without requiring destruction.
The goal of the deferment is to stop a negative outcome (the resident being forced to sell their property because of higher LVT taxes) from occurring until the resident actually wants to do so.
They 'worked' when they initially just scanned files for known malicious signatures. Now they're the equivalent of a sledgehammer to a wall with all of the extra bells & whistles strapped to them.
Application whitelisting is the remaining way forward if you actually care about runtime security. That & locking every access point down to the bare minimum.
HN had an Eternal September. Such discussions have been drowned out by the rest of the mob.
1) That level of demand is likely true, but that doesn't mean that the total spending demand is to match to that level.
2) Most of said office work can be automated via normal software, and need not use LLMs. If they were to be automated, the amount of work left available for Anthropic to routinely work on would be (lower than before the automation took place).
- They have internal models that still show there's gas in the tank, in terms of improvements
- Open models are eroding their customer base on the low end of the curve, & also you need not use Astra Max to classify images.
- The true demand for high-intelligence tasks is lower than what they need to justify their spending
- It would be wonderful for them to kick up a scare & give reasons as to why high-int open models should be regulated out of existence, opening up the lower end for them to take again
- Setting up an oligopoly for themselves gives them a captive audience, just like it did for (insurance, banking, telecoms, etc.) via regulatory capture
By the time we can show you data that convinces you that it does work, the next generation would already be out & incrementally dismantling the old conjectures that were true in the previous generations.
You're fundamentally asking for a violation of how information passively disseminates amongst humans: To go any faster requires more effort on the receiver's part to move up on the adoption curve.
The difference is artificial, and delusionally blinds itself to the base reality that social/political capital exists.
Again, just because there isn't a cash figure attached to that bounty, doesn't mean that a reward hasn't been attached to it in the form of social/political prestige.
Both actions are equivalent, as such words are (social and/or political) capital bounties offered to the masses in return for fulfilling the death of said politician.
Capital always exists, even in the form of words. To deny a variant of capital whilst allowing another variant is inconsistent/doublespeak.
Just because it's not printed onto a piece of denominated paper, doesn't mean that such capital doesn't exist.