aatd86

Interesting. Only thing, from someone who has built something similar, is that it moght tend to duplicate certain capabilities that those harnesses handle on their own. Some overlap is bound to happen.

Did someone compare to gliner 2.5 ? https://fastino.ai/blog/gliner2-5-span-free-information-extr...

Yup. That was really short sighted. And good for China. And actually the overall global market market since supply will augment and competition will decrease pricing as well.

99.90% ;D It basically gives you the softmax value instead of using it to generate the output token. (said loosely)

That is great marketing for strix, pretty bad for baseten. I don't think someone can have a better story to advertise their own security product. Did not know about strix but I am going to look it up now. Might add it to my stack.

That is what the Palantir guy (Karp) has been warning against. People/business need to keep their IP instead of throwing it all into Claude and whatnot. Risk being the worst aspects of communism which I think he meant centralization of decision, asymmetric supply/demand for compute (they lock you in), and the tech overloard Anthropic/OpenAI/xAI being in competition with everyone;s business all of a sudden with much more data. An unfair advantage in markets made super competitive all of a sudden. A winner takes all attempt.

This is not sustainable anyway, the scale at which they want to control data flows. Time was money, now data is money and they are too greedy for it.

All this agitation is just a silly attempt at constraining competition. The danger is not the AI, it is having all your systems connected. Overreliance on networked tech.

Yes, declarative UI is just an abstraction of imperative code. :) The rest is properties of the internal implementation. The VDOM way obfuscates the internals more. Doesn't let you control rendering appropriately. It is so because the diffing and reconciliation algorithm have to be able to remove any subtree of views/nodes from the UI tree.

Then you can only have islands of either paradigm within each other. UIKit and SwiftUI do indeed compose, albeit coarsely.

I can't blame them, they got influenced by react. Don't even blame react, it was a good attempt. Basically trying to build a UI from a snapshot of a tree. Except this is too simplistic a model. They designed it as if you could equate the number of games and the number of positions in chess. Like a markov chain. Except playing chess has side effects. A mere snapshot does not encode those.

I understand the mistake.

It is virtual dom like. We don't have access to a stable underlying element like we would with plain UIKit. You can build declarative models without this virtualdomness. But SwiftUI was created during the react boom so they went with the Zeitgeist, understandably.

Now this is somewhat problematic if someone wants to implement better fine grained reactive systems. And I posit that the next paradigm is going to be in that direction given what I've been working on (furthering current reactive systems which only go halfway).

Just like any engineering and business decision, this is a tradeoff. I probably don't see things from the same vantage point. Can't help but notice a trend however. What if this accelerates, especially with AI being an enabler?

That would be a huge mistake if we expect many more hardware and OS running them efficiently than just iOS and Android. Best is to have an IR. Now maybe that IR can be turnt into native code. But we shouldn't be constrained. As an incoming framework author, SwiftUI is problematic for instance because it has a programming model which is dated. And I don't particularly enjoy the language either. Looked fine at first and then got more complex than I feel is needed.

oh yeah, disclaimer: I write UI frameworks and dabble in PLs.

AI still does not do pattern matching the same way my brain works. I still see things that can be improved where the AI just go with what is most common. If I nudge it, it realizes it. If I don't, I get basic software.

Just as I speak, it is reworking a UI compositor design, after I told it to use the reactive framework I have built for damage restoration, because in the end, this is a reactive problem. The implications, it drew on its own. But I had to nudge it.

Not obvious from our discussions with friends or even from videos on youtube about everyone wondering how they are ad tracked.

They care but then it has been made very difficult to find privacy preserving services. Or convenience takes over.

It is like replaceable batteries. Everyone cares but we are not given the choice.

Or the headphone jack...

I think it is different here. First it is easy to build. Second that is too much information that should remain private.

Unfortunately I can't do that. My projects are too big now. In fact, this is how I deal with projects: I build the base manually and then I can iterate with AI faster once the fundamentals are solid. Sometimes the AI tends to forget those fundamentals or tries to change those and add unnecessary stuff on top. If I stay invested in what the AI is doing, I can usually spot it and nudge the AI back to sanity.

That is how I think it should be done.

But who is going to trust Facebook/Meta with everything? Even my parents are wary of their products. I can't see a personal assistant coming from them and being successful.

Drawing cardioids in maple V while I had darkbasic pro at home and could write my own games and delve into quaternions since 3eme. :x

No wonder I failed this sht, kind of.

I don't think I can ever be motivated by such challenges. It's either I'm getting up to speed to the state of the art from the very basics and then I can try to figure out if something was missing along the way or solve unsolved useful problems, or I will not be interested.

I just can't tinker for the sake of tinkering. Too goal oriented I guess.

Just me? (that is also why school started to bore me right before high school and why I learn better on my own, I did go too College but thank god I didn't do CompSci or that would have disgusted me...)

It has to be a bell curve doesn't it.. I am too much of a perfectionist... Then again, my llms constantly claim that I am doing things that are beyond the SOTA. Even my own mom lost hope.. Still haven't shipped a single thing... haha.

(half joke aside, it is finally coming in a couple days.. which I have been saying for quite some time to the extent that my peeps don't even trust me anymore.. 3 things are coming and it is genuinely research grade apparently, for the amount of research I am aware that is released publicly. I really don't know how people ship things, the tooling I see is terrible, or maybe I have NIH syndrome...)

Of course they do, regardless of the language. That is why we have things such as string interning for instance. :)

What is a philosopher? Hopefully not someone who constantly refer to others thinking and not their own... tongue-in-cheek

me still thinking about the iRiver H320 I was lusting after...

Well if pointing out where you are mistaken is insulting, excuse me but I will keep being rude. Feel free to quit the conversation.

What you do not seem to understand is that with a normal Android distribution, you expect a phone home tied to the manufacturer of your phone.

Matter fact, as I pointed to you but you conveniently ignored, it does not have to be an 'Android' phone. It is the same for Apple and their iphones and pretty much all off the shelf phones. Not need to single out Android if your point is not about the fact that I said 'bootleg' Android...

With a bootleg Android, you forego any security, beyond the phone home. ANd you wouldn't even find someone to speak to about it. What is so difficult to understand?

Forbid a business can grow, haha

I recognize this comparison style. Definitely generated by Claude. haha

You are just not making any sense. Your very first comment is the one taking offense with the word 'bootleg' erroneously...

If your worry is about phone-home, no need to mention Android specifically. This happens with all off the shelf phones. Point is about a phone that has an OS that looks like what you would expect and just doesn't do what you expect. Obviously you didn't understand what I had written so I had to call you on that. You may feel insulted, does not mean that I am insulting you.

Anyway, just so that it is clear. Probably should end the conversation here so no one feels insulted any further.

I din't make an argument about "bootleg", I just used the term and you argued it.

Besides, depending on the actual OSI license, you can definitely have bootlegs if you really care to argue.

A bootleg does not need to be exploited commercially. It can just be counterfeit.

I am not insulting you. I am telling you that you are being overly pedantic while being wrong at the same time. You might find this difficult to accept but I'm just calling it.

So pedantic, you must be fun at parties. Or maybe are you arguing for the sake of arguing? Fake Android if it suits you better.

I said bootleg Android didnt I? Are Android phones using mods or a complete revamped version?

You didn't get it. I'm talking about fake Android. Not GrapheneOS or similarly a whole other OS that doesn't try to pass as Android.

It's not much import loops rather than introducing fine-grained conditional compilation, since behavior changes depending on whether a trait is imported or not. That has an effect on incremental compilation unless I am mistaken.

So even if generics were there from the 'get-go', I am not sure this exact feature would be added anyway. In fact, it is mostly contrary to Go's structural polymorphism, let alone parametric polymorphism.

Typically what you want would be defined as a function, a specific wrapper type... If it is not already a common method of each shape.

So far, I don't feel like the design of Go's generics suffers from any real issue. The implementation is not 100 percent done yet. But the plan looks sound to me.

Who wants a bootleg Android that sends all your call logs who knows where? xD