No. The only solve is to start voting and voting for people that actually fix these problems instead of bowing to corporate interests over people interests.
If you look through the ollama codebase, it has a bunch of helpers for just pointing claude code, codex, etc at the ollama api. You can just use ollama and it's helpers or just write your own wrapper to make it work however you want.
I assume you really just want claude code, Qwen 3.8 is practically Claude Opus 4.8-ish out of the box.
Well, I want Claude Code, Opus 5.5 specifically, but locally. I assume that if you give e.g. Qwen a certain set of instructions (skills, etc.) or complete harness, you can make it behave more like Claude. And I assume there are people who are trying to do this. So that's what I'm asking.
A decade ago, I would have said that's an individual person problem. Though these companies don't understand the word "No" and have already pushed the boundaries to the point that they're all in collusion with each other, resulting in broken privacy.
At least US-side, nothing will change until people start holding their representatives accountable and start voting for people that will actually do something about it.
This wont happen anytime soon, we have a much bigger problem we're dealing with for the next two years.
> nothing will change until people start holding their representatives accountable
Which itself won't change. The term for holding representatives accountable is "lobbying", which the public believes is an abhorrent act!
> and start voting for people that will actually do something about it.
The thing is, who wins an election matters little. There are always exceptions, and we've definitely seen exceptions, but most representatives are there in good faith. However, they are not mind readers. They can't do anything aligned to the people until the people start lobbying to make it known what they want — but the people won't do that because it is seen as abhorrent behavior.
> This wont happen anytime soon
Especially when appears likely that those companies are responsible for making the people believe that it is unacceptable to lobby. They have the marketing budgets and know-how to keep pushing that narrative until the end of time.
I could be wrong. Like when you're dumb enough to eliminate large swaths of the workforce, especially technologically skilled workers, you're risking these people using these same technologies to vote you out.
People know how to game the algorithms presented to them, so it's not as simple as having ad-bucks anymore.
> The term for holding representatives accountable is "lobbying", which the public believes is an abhorrent act!
That’s a misrepresentation. You see plenty of exhortations to “call your representative”, which technically could be called lobbying, but that’s not what people find problematic. The issue is professional lobbying, which involves people paid to lobby, and often involves money or other incentives for the representative being lobbied. This kind of lobbying is not actually focused on holding representatives accountable, but rather on changing their positions.
As such, the above quote really doesn’t have much bearing on how much the public holds, or wants to hold, representatives accountable.
No matter how much you try to apologize it away the reality remains that the public abhors talking to their representatives. According to the 2016 US census on behaviour, only 10% of the public do. Which, conveniently, is exactly the same proportion of the population whose livelihood comes from ownership of a business. You're right to point out that business lobbying doesn't have the same stigma (or more likely when survival is on the line you stop caring about what other people think), but I think the earlier commenter already recognized that.
See also: "We decide on something, leave it lying around, and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don't understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back." - Jean Claude Juncker
Maybe someone shows up, makes a solid case for something new, and surprises us. There's still people out there claiming it can, so I'm going to keep asking this every month until someone wows me or the topic dies at a societal level.
Have you looked through this repo? I'm not seeing enough here to really answer the question posed. Like some of this repo, I know came from correlation of information not connected before (like the quasi-Riemann result). Some of it is just an extension of ground work already done, not necessary new in a sense that should be interesting. We know word calculator can calculate. There's probably a lot of human credit missing here.
We could just say "AI has destroyed trust" and it's accurate.
First hand experiences myself:
I can't commission an artist without questioning if they are using AI, which isn't acceptable in the projects I am commissioning for.
I can't trust that my coworkers are actually testing the crap they're generating before wasting my time with runbooks that aren't even validated. It was bad enough that people miss important steps with assumed knowledge, but now we have that amplified by these types of documents that are no being AI generated.
I can't trust that my code wont be sucked up by some money greedy company at speeds unheard of before and benefit someone with out any credit to me doing something novel or interesting.
Even worse, I can't trust the smart people to not be idiots either. How many engineers do you know that have completely outsourced all the thinking to the robot, while we know fully that it's closer to a slot machine than it is a thinking machine?
Maybe even worse than that is the companies thinking they can reduce 10% of their workforce and compensate with LLMs. It's absolutely laughable, because I witnessed it first hand. Company I worked at fired my recruiter and the guy that was going to be my boss before my start date. My onboarding was practically non-existent and nobody wants to train their newbies anymore. The fear of being axed from your job at the first thing that MIGHT make a profit is also high. To every company that retained me through their layoffs, joke is on them, people like me want to see stability and that's just fiscal irresponsibility they're signalling.
Just some thoughts to illustrate it's not just writing. Trust is destroyed in any creative and professional en devour at this point.
We pretty much never only judged the output. An oil painting is valued because it's an oil painting among other things. If people know you have worked on something for a long time, it's valued more than something you just came up with this afternoon. A chair crafted by a woodworker, even if it's worse in some ways, is valued over an IKEA chair produced in a fraction of the time.
Generative models are like outsourcing to cheap mass production factory, not an advanced woodworking tool in your basement.
Both of those things are visible in the output. An Ikea chair isn't denigrated because we're such snobs, but because it's made of inferior materials. If Ikea started selling solid hardwood bookshelves tomorrow at the same price as their other stuff, I'd be driving right over there!
No, because you can get indistinguishable hand painted oil clones of famous paintings from Vietnamese rep shops and they obviously sell for far less than the originals.
Barring AI generated art and prose assets is valid, if for example you don't want to have the AI generation marker on steam, or you object to the use of AI for various ethical reasons. Also there's apparently quite the market of motivated purchasers that want to signal their anti AI values by buying from projects that don't use AI.
The IKEA chair costs less, but to say it’s valued less is too simple. Valued by whom? Only a small minority will ever buy a chair that was handmade. Presumably they prefer it, but they’re rare.
IKEA’s many customers deliberately chose the IKEA chair. We don’t know what other chairs they might have preferred if they were the same price, because they’re not.
Well that's the point a custom chair is valued more
I'd say most IKEA customers choose IKEA because it's cheap and they don't really consider or maybe even have an option to get a custom chair made, they don't know someone who could make one or they don't want to pay for it.
Hmm, I don't know that time invested inherently equates to quality. I would place FAR more value on a comfortable functional mass-assembled chair than some wobbly piece of crap some guy spent two weeks cobbling together in his garage.
It's not just time, it's also effort and other non obvious things like supporting a real human being
> I would place FAR more value on a comfortable functional mass-assembled chair than some wobbly piece of crap some guy spent two weeks cobbling together in his garage
If it's wobbly then sure, but what if it was made by someone with a modicum of expertise to make it not wobbly.
then again, i don't mind a good wobble, it's a fidget opportunity and i like to fidget
I suppose we're talking about "craft" vs "art." Making chairs is a craft. There are objectively "right" ways to do it. You can still be artistic about it, so long as the craftsmanship is sound. That being said, I will take a well-crafted chair over one that is not every time over the "artistic" one.
With regards to writing, I can't just throw word salad together and call it a day. But my writing style is my own voice - I pretty much write the same way I speak. With AI... well, after you've read enough of it, you notice that it, too, has its own voice. Like, I can distinguish the writing style of Gemma4 real quick. It smells like ozone.
I don't necessarily mind, so long as its telling me something coherent and accurate. You could argue it lacks originality, and it certainly lacks agency: But it IS usually well-crafted. I'll take it. Won't stop me from reading, say, PKD novels. But miss me with the artistry of, say, Finnegan's Wake, or even Ulysses, I'm apparently way too dumb for those (yes, I've tried). PKD would crank out multiple novels every year, Joyce took like decade to write incomprehensible nonsense.
> We've always judged the output, so why stop now. AI is just a tool. The artist still owns the output.
Who are we? What output? Organic certification has a long history in agriculture. To get certified requires more than just judging the output. My process are regulated or judged, and have been, using criteria other than the blinded output.
Even if this were true, it doesn't address the other element of the problem, which is that flooding the zone with horrible crap makes it harder to find the good stuff, and forces you to waste a lot more of your own time filtering crap.
Yes, I can usually identify AI slop within a couple paragraphs, but it still wastes my time to encounter it, and if it's my entire feed, it's going to drown out the good stuff I'd actually want to read. Same for literature at a larger scale, to say nothing of the countless scandals where obvious AI-written crap wins various writing competitions.
> We've always judged the output, so why stop now. AI is just a tool. The artist still owns the output.
Customers never checked every hand in an oil painting to make sure they were painted correctly. They always trusted that the artist - who spent hundreds of hours painting the thing, instead of just pasting a prompt into a slop cannon - was familiar enough with the entire work and had spent enough time working on it to catch stupid mistakes.
Imagine a relative passed and you commission someone to draw a portrait of them to show at the funeral. The artist has good reviews and all their work looks impressive; their portfolio has hundreds of amazing photorealistic portraits. It's expensive, but nothing is too good for a passed loved one.
After weeks of waiting, you finally get the portrait ...aaaaand it looks nothing like them. There's weird artifacting all over it and it looks like a supermodel imposter with meat-moss hair. You try to contact the artist, but they've completely vanished: socials deleted, emails unreplied, just gone.
High trust environments are inherently more efficient and cheaper so the destruction of trust will act like a tax on all activity. But that'll probably make the GDP go up so it will be read as an economic improvement, just like wrestling with health insurance companies.
Even when they are honest about it there's a cost. I keep receiving status emails where the first line says "Generated with AI, be sure to check for accuracy". Apparently, it's more efficient to send an email with unverified information to twenty people and tell them to each individually check it than it is for the sender to just make sure it's accurate before they send it out. Maybe they're just asking their agent to do the check for them though.
"Maybe even worse than that is the companies thinking they can reduce 10% of their workforce and compensate with LLMs"
It's significantly dumber than that. Companies are paying to pour all of their domain and institutional knowledge, processes, and data into the training pipeline of tools their competitors use. Even better, they ignore the fact that as these tools gain competency the owners of these systems are guaranteed to start spinning up integrated industry verticals in direct competition.
Tried to tell that to my executive suite and they told me I was being ridiculous. Showed them OpenAIs "digital program management" for USG projects and it was like they suddenly went blind. Half a beat later it was like I never uttered a word and they were back to talking about "becoming a leader in AI." We're a fucking consulting company that can't even put small, hand written projects written by domain experts in front of the client because of our joke of an IT department. We're never going to credibly be "leaders in AI."
The charitable interpretation here is your executive suite all have exit strategies with < 2-5 year timelines. All alternative interpretations suggest profound incompetence.
Whoa! It's like a lightbulb turned on over my head. Can you say more about this? How do you see those larger patterns? I am missing social cues like this at my workplace and this is my first experience on a sinking ship of a business.
"TSMC Hacked" is misleading here. They clearly state they haven't found signs of their system being hacked, what they've found is employee data is out in the wild. Possibly thirdparty.
Learn to read and don't spread these editorial title lies.
A better title: "TSMC reports employee data found in public to SEC" or something like that.
/shrug - I have an end-to-end encrypted file delivery service. It's a dumb service. If the box got compromised, it doesn't even matter. The files can't be read or stolen because they would have to actually crack the algorithm... which if they did then it's just over, the internet is plaintext again if people are able to defeat what's been recommended as best practices for SSL/TLS these days.
Just because a system is end-to-end encrypted doesn't mean the users are anonymous. If someone reported to me a download link with decryption key for my file service, I can probably find the IP address of the person that uploaded it. Then pass it off to whatever govt entity that deals with that.
reply