Unpopular opinion: it shouldn’t matter when it comes to code quality.

If it’s a dev with AI and the code is good, then it should be merged.

If it’s a dev with AI and the code is bad, then the code should be rejected.

If it’s a dev without AI and the code is good, then it should be merged.

If it’s a dev without AI and the code is bad, then the code should be rejected.

So in that case AI has no effect on the outcome. The only explanation I can see for making it visible is for the sake of licensing. Which I don’t have an opinion on right now because I haven’t looked into it enough.

Ok but then why call it AI?

We don’t have to dream about a distant future to find a thing that can do math for us. It’s called a computer, and if it’s in our home, it might even be a personal computer. In fact, we have them smaller and faster, and they have fancy designs and can communicate to the world but it turns out they got a small chip inside that does a bunch of arithmetic binary operations and then a lot of them also have a chip inside them that can quickly operate on huge matrices of values. We call those cpus and gpus respectively.

What I’m saying is, if it’s just a threshold of different values, we were capable of making such a machine already, even before AI. And if it’s an interpretative opinion, it turns out AI is notoriously bad at those.

So the only thing an AI actually helps with is to do something when we don’t know how. But the issue was never how. Now there’s something to be said about the predictability of death but there’s an insane amount of compounding factors that contribute to this. An AI could maybe be trained on a subset of factors but the truth is, we don’t have good input and output data, that’s why AI won’t help us here.

I’m not saying this to be pedantic, I’m making a point: even IF we decide that actually ethically it’s fine for a machine to decide when someone has to die - which is quite a big leap - even then an AI won’t be better than a human, so there’s no point. And there’s no way to make this look good, no way to sell this to the broader populus. I just don’t see any way where this scenario is possible, let alone probable.

And I think that’s important, because it’s very easy to slide down this slippery slope, interpolate a time series forecast in our head and essentially conclude “it’s going downhill so the future must be what our average dystopia predicted” and I don’t think that’s right or even helpful. There’s quite a few things we should improve and our world is on the brink of a bigger societal change again, but change is never just bad. Change is an opportunity to improve the things that are important to us. And to do this, we need all the brilliant minds that see those issues to imagine those improvements, so we should make sure we know what needs to be done when we finally get the chance.

This makes no sense.

Neural networks inherently work in a probabilistic latent space. The whole point is that we have a definable problem and we are unable to apply any deterministic mathematical calculations to it. That’s why we call it a “black box problem” - we know what the solution looks like and we have a few examples of input and output data, but we don’t know what the method looks like. In fact, even if we have an AI we don’t know what the method looks like. If you wanna know more about this issue, look up explainable AI and you will find all the ways we have tried to come up with smart solutions like model heat maps to estimate their methodology. But these are all approximations.

Now if you ask an LLM what method it used to get to a solution, it will try to work backwards using its own reasoning and context clues to give you what its best estimation of the methodology is but that’s not the same as its true methodology.

For me (and most people of the machine learning field I am aware of) an AI is inherently worse at calculations. That’s what algorithms are for. And the only things sitting somewhere between an LLM and an algorithm are maybe Markov chains and randomforest. If there’s anything remotely close to an AI model that is good at calculations, I am all ears.

every win should be celebrated

Yeah we could have some more of that here on Lemmy because people tend to be quite negative.

Honestly that’s awesome, I didn’t manage to get grafana working when I tried exactly this, I’ll definitely check out any guides you used ^^

Damn they must be beyond desperate

I am torn. I’m glad they’re trying genuinely new things and imo rewriting parts of their code in rust is a great idea performance-wise. I wish they would do it with the rest of the OS too.

Then again why? We got Linux, we got permissions, we got security concepts and doctrines, we got users, groups and members and we got LDAP. We also have sandboxing through lxc or full on VMs. Maybe this is the only way to do it on windows but they’re just reinventing the wheel just so they can fit it on a donkey. It’s just kind of useless to tack that onto a swiss cheese of an OS.

It feels like they know something fundamental has to change but they just invent new things to screw onto a rusted old contraption that’s barely humming along. This is kind of an “either commit or die pretending” moment and I am curious if they understand that before it’s too late and what a genuine strategy would look like.

It exists to identify if whoever is visiting is a human or a bot.

Why?

Because if it’s a bit it’s likely automated and there’s a variety of reasons to not want automated requests to come through. Some of them are:

• because lots of “hackers” try to hack systems by automatically trying to find security vulnerabilities in a server, service etc.
• because automated requests can be done faster, so they can happen more commonly, and they use resources, and if there’s too many this genuinely affects server performance budget
• bunch more reasons

Why are these companies allowed to create their own private definition of “trusted developer”?

Lots of reasons. The reason these platforms will give will be something along the lines of “to make sure that the developer is trusted we need to verify them and that costs money”. I personally believe it’s just that they want your money, and I personally believe this is monopolistic behavior. In a working system that’s for the FTC to investigate.

This looks so good

Oh God quickly disperse before gimp gang pulls up

Lots of people chimed in regarding battery, which is a legitimate issue.

Another thing though is ARM. Phones usually have a different processor architecture and this architecture used to be incompatible with lots of server software. I remember being pissed at because I couldn’t even host a TeamSpeak Server on it because it wasn’t compatible. Now this was a while back and I’ve heard compatibility has gotten better but still, do some research beforehand.

I don’t think so.

First of all, let’s put ethics aside, that’s a whole different underlying can of worms.

Now the models themselves. AIs have gotten very good at producing things we already do a lot, so “write me a bubble sort in language x”. AIs are ok in medium-sized projects: e.g. “a webserver, with authentication and these sides with different UI elements etc.”. But AIs are pretty bad at more complex, advanced or niche projects, e.g. “this software needs to create a VPN mesh with these other hosts, implemented control messages and dashboard, …”. Because this is not standard practice, the AI will struggle hard.

Not to go into detail on this but inherently AIs are trained in a statistical way that always introduces such asymmetric knowledge deficits.

On top of that AIs are extremely bottlenecked by lack of coherence. There’s basically a window of coherence within a given conversation or project but that window always closes at some point. And the result is the AI writing mismatched code, unstructured patchwork projects and hallucinating code snippets or files. So you will get pretty far with your projects at some point but AI will always break down when you’re far enough into the project. And that’s when you have to have someone on board who genuinely knows the codebase.

What I’m saying is, unless we get some more fundamental changes, I have a hard time believing we get either actual AGI (and not something imitating AGI) or AI that is good enough to genuinely replace broad swaths of human jobs in any sector.

WSL?

To be clear tony stark was rich. So in the realm of that:

there’s small bad holograms for cheap I think, probably with enough money you could make a built in holographic display somehow. It’s just that no one usually does that because it’s a waste of money and resources.

Deliver your drinks from the other room, I’m sure for rich people building a home with things like that in mind is possible. For the average household I’m not so sure. Robots can deliver food ok-ish (autonomous delivery robots) but I’m sure they need to be calibrated to the exact home layout. And anthropomorphic robots are turning out to be an incredibly inefficient design in general. Building the robot to serve it’s specific purpose seems to be way more useful.

Thinking AI is kind of where we recently made the most progress and imo we’re basically there. Deploy whisper for speech detection, maybe some cleanup in between, then an LLM like Qwen for thinking and run all your appliances as tool calls. The AI will automatically know how to handle it. I would say for simple things it’ll probably get it right 95% of the time “lights on” “set an alarm” etc. That said, for more complex tasks like “plan a trip to the museum at x and share it with x contacts” these AI models are not there yet. They might get it right somewhere between 30%-50% of the time. AI models are great now, but they’re not consistent enough and they are too resource hungry. Scientists are currently focusing on better compression so models get smaller and more people can just use them on their own hardware but it’ll still be a while.

Conclusion: We’re at like 80%. They kind of work. Depending on the dedication, money and nature of the tasks.

Damn that proposed law sounds equally dangerous and stupid.

Fuck you I’m not showing my ID to play funny shooter game with live chat.

I think most common is phishing attacks, scammers, and then shady downloads.

Less common is probably dependency attacks, xss, and exploiting servers in the traditional way, and probably a bunch of other attack vectors.

I’m not cool headed but after a while I learned I can’t fix his trust, I can only ground him by showing him my world and doing my best to keep the door open. The rest is up to him.

That’s the way I do it. My dad started distrusting most of academic science, so every time he is telling me something outlandish about spiritual things I just say that I view those things differently and then tell him how and why.

Just a soft disagreement, not more not less. I want him to know how I think, I wanna understand why he feels that way.

This will be controversial I think but I wanna say it.

I think “AI is the industrial revolution” is one of these opinions that makes AI easier to grasp and thus it’s more popular than most people think.

I believe that too btw because it benefits and destroys us at the same scale. Of course when you get into the details it’s a very different technology shift but I think generally a lot of people subscribe to that.

No shaming, fair question.

From a societal ethics standpoint I don’t see a reason why any decision in this would be reprehensible. Both seem like valid lines of thinking to me.

If your social support is stable enough even without your partner, I think that’s doable and might be fine.

Now I’m also considering whether you are able to take care of an aging partner as well as a younger child or teenager which might be another thing worth considering.

I think I personally would lean towards keeping the child but mind you I’m a 30 yo guy with no partner, so I have a very different perspective on this.

Anyway I hope whatever decision you make, you will make it work.

American’s reactions will range from despair to triumph. Most of them feel sad about it at the minimum. But I think they will be mainly responding to the state of affairs, after all a nuke just reflects the extreme voices currently in power in the US.

I personally will grieve the world before the new nuke dropped. I would be scared of escalation and I would probably also get more radical in my beliefs. I would probably find fairly radical activist groups and join them and try to supply them with my time and knowledge as much as possible.

Basically a nuke will change my methods. I will basically look at the current geopolitics as beyond repair and I will try my best to make my voice heard forcefully, so we can role the dice and hope for better leaders. Maybe I will have to donate my freedom.

But until that part of me dies that still hopes we can get there with our current system, I will be a holdout and just make my vote count.