I think ChatGPT got popular because they couldn't show 10 blue links right.
1,470 karma · joined December 3, 2023
Sometimes I get SO questions from 13 years ago with a version of a library nobody uses anymore. If I search in my native language almost every result is a Reddit thread that was originally in English but was machine translated to Portuguese and Google is fine with that for some reason. Searching for images just gets you AI images.
If you need opinions on "what is the best X" you end up getting some content marketing from a website that offers some online service and probably has an .ai or .io domain.
No matter what you search you get an AI overview wasting space and slowly generating an answer that could be completely made up, just wasting your time in two ways at once.
Most long queries are simply completely ignored by Google. Almost every word ignored in order to show some sort of most popular result. You don't even know if there are no pages on the internet with what you searched for or if Google simply doesn't care to show any website that isn't sufficiently popular. In other words, never personal websites or blogs, only platforms and cloud services' content marketing blogs are allowed to appear in the results.
I've found myself several times asking Claude if there is "research" on a subject or another because I don't want to have to try to wade through the AI overview, sponsored results, SEO spam, reddit, repeated results on the second page, etc. just to find something that ressembles actual relevant information.
Yes, that is what every user ever wanted! A UI that just randomly changes!
People just have a fundamentally misguided idea of what they should be doing. You just quote. That is all. Nobody needs your originality as a writer. They just want the quotes, the sources, and, optionally, a synthesis, conclusion, and summary. That is the "work" you need to do and if you do just this, that is enough value already even if it feels like plagiarism by people who don't know what the word plagiarism means.
Everyone knows information came from somewhere. Where did you read it? We all know you didn't just wake up one day and remembered it from a past life or something like that. Why are you trying to pretend you just know it? Where are the links? Where are the screenshots?
If you are giving people the sources that you should have been giving all along, in the correct way, then you don't need to "check your sources." Because "your sources" are literally where you got that information from in first place, so you have already checked them.
Hence, if ChatGPT gave you a source, then your source isn't the source that ChatGPT gave you, because you didn't read it. Your source is, literally, ChatGPT. You should be writing "Smith, 2015, as cited by ChatGPT." Because you didn't read Smith, 2015. You read ChatGPT!
Someone automated rewriting Bun in Rust, allegedly fixing the bugs.
>the author just injected garbage bytes manually into the database header, and then argued that this corrupted the database
>Steps to reproduce: Modified cli/main.rs to include a Vec with limited capacity. Forced a volatile write beyond the allocated bounds using std::ptr::write_volatile.
>author claims to have found a critical vulnerability that allows for the execution of arbitrary SQL statements. Imagine that? A SQL database that allows the execution of SQL statements. How can we ever recover from this.
I wonder why are they even doing this. Do any of these PRs ever win any money? It feels like they are burning down a forest thinking they'll find gold if they do it, without any evidence that there will be any gold after the forest is burnt down.
The function worked perfectly mathematically speaking, but after a bit of research I realized a human being would never write a piece of code so bad.
I don't remember exactly, but it looked like this:
denominators = [...]
def lcm(a, b):
return abs(a * b) // math.gcd(a, b)
return reduce(lcm, denominators)
First, that is the correct way to calculate the LCM that you'll quickly learn if you google it (or if you ask claude). The problem: math.lcm already exists! Any human being writing this would have paused to think "wait, Python has math.gcd, does it have math.lcm as well?" And then they would have just used that.
Second, you don't even need reduce. You can just math.lcm(*denominators). A human being would have realized this when intellisense showed it takes any number of arguments instead of just 2.
Pretty much every time I used an LLM to generate code it generates a rough draft barely held together that needs to be completely rewritten later. With Qt for example it generated 2 push buttons for Ok/Cancel when there is QDialogButtonBox for this that even orders the buttons to match the typical system order, or when generating a combo box that associated labels with objects it tried to figure out which object from the text of the label of the items when there is already a way to just set an arbitrary object for each item and then get it later with .currentData().
Every single time it makes me think: yes, this works. But no, not like this.
I can't imagine with 1 million lines of this feels like.
One thing Zig has that lots of "niche" languages don't is that you can include C headers directly. This means if you want to make a game in SDL, for example, you don't need to wait until someone ports SDL to your new language. You can just include SDL.h directly and start using it. D also has this feature, by the way, but Rust requires you to generate the bindings.
Even if people move from Zig to Rust for some things or vice-versa, the strengths of Zig remain there.
In many cases technology laws are myopic in that they only see the most massive websites and forget that there is a whole www outside facebook. Is sorted by likes/upvotes a recommendation? Is the total of likes of your friends a recommendation? Can only data points from the last week be considered? Can there be a falloff by age?
At which point does the weights of the variables start to constitute a "recommendation"?
Define algorithm.
Absolutely change my cursor. But to something that looks cool, like a dragon or a sword. Not to a circle.
I'm afraid that the core of the problem is something far more simple and fundamental.
The people designing desktop apps today simply never learned the conventions that make desktop applications good. They grew up with smartphone apps, web apps, electron apps, games, etc.
In fact, you can observe from things like JavaFX, Flutter, WPF, etc., that the trend has long been about the ability of easily creating custom widgets like you could with Javascript (or Flash), rather than the convenience of having a library of widgets that look and feel exactly the same as every other widget in the system.
It feels very obvious that the solution is to have a smaller model that can be trained exclusively on Java information to augment the older model. If the architecture doesn't support it currently, then that's what the architecture will look like in the future.
Otherwise you'd be arguing that, to serve users who want to an up-to-date LLM on topic X, you have to train the model on the entire ABC all over again.
It's simply ludicrous to have a coding LLM that needs to be retrained on the latest published poems and pastry recipes to generate Java.
wrapped. It looks better that way.
You simply can't expect every software that wants a plugin system to have the same security practices as the most used software in the world.
In fact, there are many reasons why you might want a plugin to have full filesystem and internet access, such as batch processing or simply adding things directly from webpages. Sandboxing this will just make plugins less useful.
In the end it's a problem of trust. You're installing software from untrustworthy developers because you trust the name of the application those plugins are associated with.
You could fix the problem in Obsidian, but the same problem will happen in other software. Some of which simply can't justify bothering with sandboxing plugins. This is just the way plugins are.
If you install a dozen mini-apps from random developers you never heard about, you can't complain if one is malware.
Krita also has a plugin system based on Python. Any "plugin" has the same level of access as running a python script.
Personally I blame operating systems for not providing a way to isolate how programs interact with user files.
We need to fork the concept of forking.
We need to start knifing.
What if the new web doesn't have a way to add navbars to webpages because this blog didn't have one so the author didn't see the point? Or numerous similar issues?
If you want to exchange .txt files you can do that already with FTP.