AlienRobot

People have a right to privacy. People should value that more, before it's all gone.

I'm not a heavy AI user but there are a couple of things I noticed trying to make copilot generate something for me from scratch.

The first is that having a single file with everything you have in mind is very useful. So I end up writing what the project is about, how the model is organized, what each button does, etc. This is good practice in general because writing down everything that the AI will have to consider forces you to consider edge cases before you program them. E.g. if you write "the detail pane shows the fields of the selected item," it makes you consider what should it show when there are no items, or if multiple selection is possible. As you can imagine, this file ends up a very long document even for a simple project because the goal is to pseudo-program everything and let the LLM translate it to an implementation.

Then it still gets things wrong about design, e.g. which pane goes left and which goes right, if you don't also provide an image that shows the layout.

And then, if you supply an exhausting amount of detail, the agent can generate more or less what you had in mind....... or rather, it can generate an OUTPUT that matches your specification from scratch.

The problem is that if there is something you failed to consider, and the AI makes an assumption there, you can end up with a fundamentally broken architecture that you will have to untangle yourself later. And at that point it's easier to write everything from scratch than to fix a pile of AI code that is based on a flawed design.

And it turns out that due to the "totem pole" way that software works, there are infinite places in code that a bad design decision can affect everything it touches.

A good example is how 2 components in a UI are bound to data. You can use events, a bus, state reactivity, etc. Personally I think the mediator pattern is the simplest way to handle GUIs. But an LLM is probably just going to use events for property bindings.

I don't think I have ever seen someone outside of tech saying this. It's always people working with the data-copying machines, never the people creating the data protected by the law, that want said laws gone.

LOL. I wish people could make good software that easy!

I don't know about recent versions, but I managed to install 18 on Linux Mint.

Making it run wasn't easy, and it can't decode MP3 and some video codecs because of licensing issues. It also can't decode WebM. This is kind of a problem because of a lot of free music you can download to add to videos and a lot of video clips you can download from Pexels for example are encoded with codecs it can't decode, so you have to re-encode it with FFMPEG first to a supported codec.

Kind of ridiculous, isn't it? Personally I think recommendation algorithms should be more powerful, customizable, and transparent. Currently they just make too many assumptions about the user without providing mechanisms to directly assign positive and negative weights to categories of content, which is what makes them unusable as a tool.

"Pog"

The first step is to actually make a better platform.

The problem with all the decentralized alternatives is that they sacrifice usability for decentralization and then almost nobody cares about decentralization so for most people it's only downsides.

You are conflating extremely different things, and that is dangerous.

Somehow we went from:

1. People can see and hear your in public

2. Therefore public places are not private

3. Therefore people can record you

4. Therefore it's okay to build a network of cameras that can track and query every place you have ever been

The problem has always been on step 2. The assumption that "public places are not private" anymore just because everyone can record you and post it on TikTok. In reality before smartphones public places were extremely private compared to being broadcast to the entire planet.

Why is it not going away?

I wonder what is the reasoning for this.

This is a reach. Children can't vote. If that was a real concern you would be banning adults from social media.

The conclusion is wrong. The point of using these media queries is that:

1) You can only use tiny buttons with precise pointers.

2) You can only use hover popups with pointers that can actually hover.

In practice, much of this is too much work and everyone just designs for touchscreens instead. It's rare to find a website that even bothers with using title="" for tooltips because smartphones are a disaster of UI and lack tooltips.

When I was in school we were taught the 3 R's: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle.

I haven't heard about Reduce and Reuse since.

Same. What I find pretty incredible is that we've had single core scheduling, then multi-core CPUs, page files, etc., all that stuff as computers progressed through the decades, just for a single app freezing the entire system in 2026.

Where did the technology go?

We'll need an archived copy of the archived copy.

Some websites even do this for the favicon.

Have you ever use an AI chatbot? It's basically a democratized scraper.

Type something stupid, it "visits" 200 websites and regurgitates some random gibberish.

Please understand that when you think of artists as "creative content authors" you are already off-base so any argument you make based on that is going to be incredibly wrong.

A piece of wisdom I read here is that "install any operating system like you can with a [PC]" is something that you can only do with a PC. PC's are the exception. Every other device is controlled by the manufacturer.

Do you think people just spawn out of nowhere the instant you interact with them or did they have a life before you met them?

David Revoy isn't a random artist on social media. He's a featured artist on Krita and creator of various Krita brush packs and tutorials.

None of these accusers seem to have done the bare minimum of Googling the artist's name before starting making accusations. I don't know if it's laziness or just lack of tech literacy that pervades the modern world, but it's very sad to see it.

Don't let it get to you. They are all saying things without thinking.

I think your assumption that HN hates X "because of wrong-think" is clouding your judgement. There is a long list of reasons to hate X.

For example, paying users get top spot in replies to tweets, which instantly meant spam bots with paid accounts posting completely unrelated replies on anything popular while real users who aren't trying to make money off twitter disappear at the bottom.

This isn't even complicated 4D chess user interaction design. Anyone with 2 neurons to rub together could see the obvious and immediate effect of such policy. If it's dropping the ball with something so obvious, how can you trust it to handle any situation more complex?

That sounds like bad design.

If you get hit by a car once, that doesn't mean you want to get hit by a car more times in the future.

What ends up happening with this algorithm is that the "for you" page is dominated by posts asking open-ended questions for engagement. You want to see game clips or screenshots, but every recommended post will ask "What game do you like the most?" or "What character of game X do you like that most?" A question that the author isn't really interested in knowing, asked only to farm engagement from passerby users.

I think that's a really ugly situation all around and a failure of how the system was designed. People should be able to just tell the algorithm what they want to see without secret trackers that promote perverse incentives.

Also, for twitter in particular, buying a subscription is pretty much buying ads on the For You page. Since users can choose to hide the blue checkmark that indicates they are paying for preferential treatment, that means, effectively, that those are promoted posts that aren't marked as "promoted" like normal ads would have to be. I think that's illegal.

You are literally replying to a thread that has an example of a game where the position of the window matters.

Google calls it "layout shift" in its web tools.

Somehow we managed to live this whole time without generative AI. Why do we need it now?

I think by "disruptive" you mean "annoying"

There is negative value in wasting vertical space to put an irrelevant prompt output in an article. It makes me question the sanity of whoever is doing this stuff. Doubly so if they actually think they dumped a bunch of AI-generated text on the internet just for people to AI-summarize it. Like... what are they DOING?

Am I the only one who thinks it's incredible that an LLM can do this, and at the same time it's ridiculous to expect it to be capable of doing it, even thought it clearly can do it?

This is why I like python.

str is a duck.