Levitz

That "massive hack" is supposed to be one of the core features of React.

Because without bigger players, Chinese models don't get anywhere. Playing catch-up is a radically different game.

Because the hegemony-ensuring machine will most certainly have "prevent others from competing for hegemony" as one of the basic tenets.

Suing is absurd as it would get nowhere, since this is China we are talking about.

Now, preventing making business in the US based on those products? At this point it's hard to argue against.

Aggressive expansion of infrastructure, R&D and very volatile audiences.

I routinely get into blocks when running medicine-related material through it.

>Please, no. GLP1s leave you worse off than when you started if you stop taking them.

This doesn't seem factual, or at the very least, not that simple?

https://www.epicresearch.org/articles/two-years-after-stoppi...

>My interests are best served with a competitive selection of open weights models available for my use.

Which is why Chinese companies use people like you.

Sorry for being blunt but if you think this policy would continue in a scenario in which they are hegemonic you are extremely delusional.

Also:

>I'm not going to stop using them just because some other people don't like the country they were developed in.

This is not a serious sentence, but a preposterous, straw-manning assertion to make, and it borders on the insult.

You've got perfectly reasonable and predictable scenarios if you read the post.

CoC drama is already a much too known vector of problems, this adds fuel to possible fires.

>fear-mongering about how legitimate projects will be removed next.

Fear-mongering?

What were legitimate projects are getting removed already. This is not fear-mongering, it's just not being incredibly shortsighted.

Well, for starters, banning content that is already present on the platform is a very aggressive measure. You are, in practice, kicking people out, and it's perfectly reasonable for those people to be upset at either Codeberg or its community.

For seconds, this proves that Codeberg may in the future ban any project. The platform is, flat out, without a doubt, not reliable long term, and I reckon about anyone should be pretty upset at that.

Third, this reeks of children playing politics. If you are going to put measures as strong as these on the table, you better have very defined lines on which to act upon, and you better have a good rationale for them. This doesn't seem to be the case in one account or the other, which paints the administration as not only incompetent, but delusional on their competency. This may not warrant anger, but it sure does warrant frustration and disappointment.

It is perfectly fine to take politics seriously. I reckon more people should do it. There is a huge problem though in which people mix that up with taking political action, without actually putting the work on what to do, why, how and what are the consequences. That is the actually hard part, and this looks more like "we are anti-bad stuff" than that.

Yes they only care about money. That's what corporations usually do.

And I'll take that 10 times out of 10 over China's role in all of this, which is specifically to disrupt and sabotage the rest.

I can trust Anthropic and OpenAI to have economic interests. I can't trust the same from Chinese companies, which I can actually trust to have geopolitic interests.

Yet handles are not shaped like hands. The speakers I use on my computer don't look anything like a mouth, nor does the microphone I use on calls look like a set of ears.

Ultimately I guess this is up to opinion, but in mine, humanizing LLMs is not exactly "conforming to human sensibilities", rather it's trying to pass the LLM as something else to make it more appealing. It is deceitful in this way, and that I completely abhor.

For example, "Please" and "Thank you" come from human sentiment. It's an expression of something underneath, and an LLM using such expressions not only is fake, but makes a mockery of the real thing.

Would you bet money that they won't be good enough for coding in, say, one year?

Just as a call to actual consideration, would that seem a smart bet to do? Because I find it really hard to justify dismissal at this point, sure I don't think these things will improve forever and ever, but come on. The goofy Will Smith spaghetti is a little over 3 years old. Three years. Look at where we are at.

Yes, it damages its image, this is further made evident given the amount of propaganda that follows each time. Why would you invest in claude or codex if you just read how China's stuff is better?

China is known to spread love and kindness through markets with no self-interest, after all.

It baffles me how this can be said without concern for first order consequences.

It's a complex feeling, really.

I've got a friend, I'll call him Bob, mostly because Bob is nowhere near his real name and I'm about to say some not very flattering things about him. He is my friend and not my job colleague or anything, so there's certain objectivity to this, in fact I appreciate Bob and I wish nothing but the best for him.

Bob has been programming for a bit more than a decade. He is, barring the people I know from other countries, the best paid programmer I know, and I know well over a dozen.

Bob has no interest whatsoever in any programming language that is not what he has been using his whole career, nor does he have any interest or curiosity in dipping his toes in other related fields, web development, tinkering with arduinos, home servers... Nothing. Bob has not built a computer, ever, doesn't know how to do it, nor what each part in that object does, beyond the hard drive because he did plug an extra one once or twice.

More anecdotally I played some Factorio and Satisfactory with Bob, now I know these are not excellent representations, but I expected a degree of order, planning and foresight, I was very much surprised when facing the reality of none of that being present, and I very much did not expect to see the same thing the few times I've looked at his code, but I did see that same thing.

I promise you Bob doesn't make up for all of this in social skills.

Now, is Bob a good engineer? I really, really don't think so. Is he a curious person? A bit, not much, I get the feel he just ended in CS with no particular interest for it, but I'll say it again: He is the best paid programmer I know.

Is that frightening? Well yeah, in a way. It's also endearing in a "Well damn if this guy can do it then surely I can too" sort of way. Money is not everything of course, but it's as good of a proxy as any.

I agree that files aren't sacred, they are just another abstraction at the end of the day, but what the other user (I think) is referring to is the trend in which, as smartphone use becomes ubiquitous, users lose sight of the technical side of things.

It's not that the average user is ignorant of the many ways in which data can be stored and retrieved. It's that they are becoming ignorant of such abstractions existing altogether. It's hard to start thinking about how images are stored if all the user knows is "they are in the gallery".

What exactly is there to get used to? Do people really use each model very differently? There's a learning curve as in everything, but there is nothing that comes to mind for me when I use codex as opposed to claude

Hilarious response to concerns about industrial production, thanks for getting us here.

I'm not sure that's quite right, the pendulum has swung to a degree, for sure, but I find it evident to argue that the place the pendulum was at was in the benefit of liberal elites, and rather than reversing, I can see how the opposition to those liberal elites do have more freedom now, but the circles adjacent to the liberal elites have enormous leeway right now, I'm not sure there's even anything verboten.

You can have as much prejudice as you like against white people, argue for ending the concept of family, the idea that the west must cede hegemony on a moral basis, reparations, ending capitalism altogether, implementing any brutally authoritarian form of government you may picture (as long as it doesn't seem right wing), ending borders, dissolving countries, call for the death of the bourgeoisie, and I won't even mention anything related to gender or data centers as I don't want to find out if these comments have a limit on text.

Is there a line? I honestly don't know if there's a line. A renowned Harvard academic could argue tomorrow that all of humanity should commit coordinated suicide and I'd barely be surprised. I wouldn't even bet money that it hasn't happened already.

I'm a liberal myself, really, but it feels the general political current of liberalism has gone through some real excesses and it's bloated and dysfunctional right now.

Do you really not see to what degree you are proving his point here?

I suspect this happens a lot, and am unsure about what the first and second order consequences are.

Most evidently, positions that are not paraded around face less backlash, so people are just not as equipped to deal with them. But then again, it's also evident that those positions don't spread as easily, often being left to niche spaces, which do have a tendency to become echo chambers, cue polarization.

Intelligence on its own is not very useful though. We put it on a pedestal because it creates huge potential when paired with other things, wisdom, discipline, empathy, but on its own?

No, just aesthetic trivia that can be paraded around to make them look good.

Given how China behaves it should be evident that the only reason they don't apply military force is because they are not in position to. Not abusing military strength is not exactly being the paragon of virtue when your opposition could probably glass the world thrice before the day is over.

>Keeps waging an economic war against the entire bloc.

>Positions their propagandists right in our middle and does the best to influence our elections.

>Exports fascism and finances antidemocratic forces.

>Supports the genocide in that certain country.

>Oh and they don't honor any treaties if they feel like it.

I don't know how anyone can really mention any of these when trying to paint a bad picture of anyone as compared to China. It's just an obscene exercise in ignorance. I just can't make sense of discourse like this except as a result of propaganda.

>Conversely, I also am a user of LLMs (true shocker these days, I know), and am noticing a speedup in areas I was already familiar with, and a quicker introduction to new ones. The obvious benefit cannot be denied, and doing so regardless makes you look uninformed.

My largest concern comes from something tangential to this: I'm not sure we're all that good at deciding what should be learned and sticking to it.

Silly example: regex. LLMs are, as far as I know, well above the average dev when it comes to writing regex. Regex is also one of those things that for many people goes unused for months, but then you encounter the occasional perfect regex problem, and it's really easy to just lean on the LLM to write the regex for you rather than spending some time tinkering and testing. Regex can be frustrating and fickle, I think we've all been there.

But then, you just don't learn regex. So where does the intuition for what regex can do come from? Do you just become unable to write regex with no LLM? People stop writing resources for regex I guess?

My concern is that there's stuff I feel I can just chuck onto the LLM but I'm sure my judgement is not perfect. It's still probably worth it, all in all, but I'm not even sure of what I might be losing along the way and that's an uneasy feel.

But that's not anything new, and even in the same text you can see examples of that.

LLMs are a tool. The brush is a tool, the pencil is a tool. The way we write already is defined by tools. This very comment is remarkably defined by its medium, I can't control its font size! Or the font at all, for that matter, nor the color, hell I can't even control how and where this comment is read! This means I'm generally going to write it in English, a whole different language from my native one! How is that for "defining"???

None of this is new, it's all dictated by human experience in the very same way that the output of a LLM gets dictated by human experience. That's the way memes (as in, anthropology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme?) work.

LLMs don't understand, they just output based on some parameters. We've been here before.

I think it's a little bit naive to think they ignore the association. They know it perfectly well, which is why they are using it. Same thing with concentration camps, same thing with mentions of Gestapo.