They know the tires are rated for hitting a landing strip under XYZ conditions, they know how to test the tires to ensure they're still confirming to the expectations of that rating, and they're in contact with the trusted organization that's responsible for issuing that rating. Each expert has a comprehensive understanding of their field, and the fields comfortably overlap with no gaps. For any given perspective, there are several people with the complete picture of that perspective.
Contrast this with a vibe-coded "airplane" where nobody actually understands the tires and you're basically operating on a set of assumptions. The tires are not rated and there's no trusted organization. Maybe it works, but you don't actually know. Very different; don't play language games.
So, you're saying that the person you're responding to is really saying, "Developers are too disabled to write native applications"? No, that's nonsense. "Laziness" is not the reason for Electron applications, but neither does it implicate disability in this context.
Incidentally, I think it's kind of ableist to toss around the concept of ableism this lightly. Disability is a set of concrete barriers which go unacknowledged and a set of real accommodations which go unimplemented. Disability activism entails acknowledging those barriers and implementing those accommodations; it does not entail the idea that everyone is always trying their best and nobody is ever negligent.
The only really useful thing I run is a secure pastebin.
I often need to copy a sensitive string from one computer to another, and I don't want to worry about it getting preserved in the edit history of a Google Doc or whatever. A small pastebin service with basic authentication where deleted notes are deleted permanently. I use it all the time.
My exact setup. Main repo on a second internal disk, one replica on an external disk, second replica in backblaze. Replicas are kept in sync with `restic copy`. Backup integrity gets checked automatically with `restic check`. It all works great.
If something behaves as if it has a goal, that's a functional goal. When I say this chess engine is "trying to take my queen," I'm basically correct, insofar as this is a useful way to understand my computerized opponent. If I give it access to my queen, it'll capture it, because that's what it's trying to do.
If LLMs are "just" statistical models, humans are "just" a bunch of neurons squirting chemicals back and forth. There's no pixie dust in our brains that makes us special.
LLMs are not conscious: They have no analogues for feelings or senses and no construct of selfhood. But if a statistical model had those things—if it did all the mundane, physical bookkeeping our brains do to produce "real" emotions and motivations—then there's no reason it couldn't be as conscious as we are.
Ok I agree they have functional goals and can functionally go rogue, but how do they functionally feel? They express feelings, but so do actors.
LLMs can't begin to have functional emotions unless they're (for instance) explicitly seeking out or avoiding situations based on the emotions those situations would produce in them. Has a chatbot ever responded to one of your requests with, "no, doing that would make me sad"?
> “He leaped at the chance” and “He jumped at the opportunity” are very similar sentences expressing the same general sentiment, but they are not the same. The exact words we choose when writing matter. I want any LLM I use to choose the very best, most precise words at every single decision point.
Neither of these is "better" or "more precise"; in fact, LLMs will generally choose randomly between these candidates based on temperature, and SynthID should not distort the output of an LLM any more than the default temperature settings do already.
I agree that those are not the same sentences, but if the difference matters to you, you shouldn't be using an LLM. This difference exists at the level of what sounds better and is more evocative; to an LLM, nothing sounds like or evokes anything. They simply do not write good prose.
I’m more concerned that this will negatively impact code generation. An additional constraint completely unrelated to code quality is unacceptable as far as I’m concerned. I was an Anthropic user but now I’m looking at OpenAI or even better, open models.
Unless you're already manually setting temperature to zero on the models you work with, the deviation from the "optimal" path imposed by the watermark should be no greater than what you already get from the randomization.
I've turned against them, partly because they're too flexible. Many of the things a dash does can be done better by more specific forms of punctuation like semicolons, colons, or brackets, which give your sentence a clearer visual structure.
It's also easy to get too used to dashes and start sticking them in places where they don't belong. If you're using a coordinate conjunction like "and" or "but," a dash is awkward and redundant. "A period is great to express a complete thought — and it shifts the register of the next letter," can more easily be "a complete thought, and it shifts" or "a complete thought — it shifts."
Dashes take up a lot of space. Like exclamation points, they draw the eye. Does the eye really need to be drawn to "a complete thought; it shifts"? If you let them, dashes will replace all your other punctuation marks, and your writing will become a soup of horizontal lines. Dashes are a sometimes food.
You're ignoring the third option, which is to make a PowerPoint slide with a stock photo and print that. Or use an online template. There are a million ways to make a cheap, adequate flyer.
People may think, "oh, it's a bit simple. I guess they're a small business," but so what? If we rule out the option of hiring an actual designer, it's gonna be that or "ew, look at that shitty AI poster."
Contrast this with a vibe-coded "airplane" where nobody actually understands the tires and you're basically operating on a set of assumptions. The tires are not rated and there's no trusted organization. Maybe it works, but you don't actually know. Very different; don't play language games.
reply