bshacklett

Just a data point my experience with ChatGPT has only gotten better and better.

K8s really isn't about piling up abstractions. The orchestrator sits beside containers (which can be run on bare metal, btw) and handles tasks which already need to be done. Orchestration of any system is always necessary. You can do it with K8s (or a related platform), or you can can cobble together custom shell scripts, or even perform the tasks manually.

One of these gives you a way to democratize the knowledge and enable self-service across your workforce. The others result in tribal knowledge being split into silos all across an organization. If you're just running a couple of web servers and rarely have to make changes, maybe the manual way is OK for you. For organizations with many different systems that have complex interactions with each other, the time it takes to get a change through a system and the number of potential errors that manual tasks add are just infeasible.

Controllers are just one way to bring some level of sanity to all of the different tasks which might be required to maintain any given system. Maybe you don't need your own custom controllers, as there are a huge number which have already been created to solve the most common requirements. Knowing how to write them allows one to codify business rules, reduce human error, and get more certainty over the behavior of complex systems.

I think you need a level of stability which generally doesn't exist in today's working environment to be able to pick an employer based on that metric.

I'm genuinely curious as to what kind of work requires a $30k computer for productivity. High end CAD?

Am I the only one concerned by this?

> In RSDS protocol DID public key is hosted on each domain and everyone is free to verify all the posts that were submitted to a decentralized system by that user.

DNS seems far too easy to hijack for me to rely on it for any kind of verification. TLS works because the server which an A(AAA) record points to has to have the private key, meaning that you have to take control of that to impersonate the server. I don’t see a similar protection here.

> I check on the frontend

This is the way. The user can benefit from feedback that they got something wrong, in addition to a helping hand.

> I don't do some half-assed horizontal "progress bar" as you scroll down the page. Your browser probably /already/ has one of those if it's graphical. It's called the scroll bar. (See also: no animations.)

Sadly, I would argue that this is inaccurate. Especially on mobile browsers, the prevalence of visible scroll bars seems to have dropped off a cliff. I'll happily excuse the progress bar, especially because this one can be done without JavaScript.

https://www.ibm.com/z/resources/zxplore has been a very useful resource for me.

You might be interested in https://pub400.com/. They provide free access to a real IBM i (a.k.a.: AS400) server.

I’m not convinced given how many makefiles I see in Go projects.

I’m not sure how common sense factors in, but the education system has absolutely failed most providers that I’ve seen in the last 20 years.

It’s the same idea that drove Lorem Ipsum for type setting placeholders.

If you live in a place with a lot of clay, geotextile fabric can certainly be problematic for simple residential settings.

Except that the inscentives are totally different from an end user perspective. Apple is inscentivised to make the phone more attractive to the person using it, because they're the ones paying. With Google search, it's the advertiser that's paying. The only thing Google needs to worry about is keeping advertisers happy. That doesn't align with making search results better.

Unfortunately, you lose a significant amount of functionality by degoogling. Any app which relies on Google services, which is a large number, will be broken.

It certainly can be, but it's not guaranteed. Clean room design is one way to avoid a legally ambiguous situation. It's not a hard requirement to avoid infringement. For example, the US Supreme Court ruled that Google's use of the Java APIs fell under fair use.

My point is: just because certain source material was used in the making of another work does not guarantee that it's infringing on the rights of that original IP.

You're right. I'm definitely taking a very US-centric view here; it's the only copyright system I'm familiar with. I'm really curious how jurisdictions with no concept of fair use or fair dealing work. That seems like a legal nightmare. I expect you wouldn't even be able to critique a copyrighted work effectively, nor teach about it.

When you speak of the "perfect reproduction" problem, are you referring to cases where LLMs have spit out code which is recognizable from source training data? I agree that that's a problem, but I expect the solution is to have a wider range of training data to allow the LLM to better "learn" the structure of what it's being trained on. With more/broader training data, the resulting output should have less chance of reproducing exactly what it was trained on _and_ potentially introduce novel methods of solving a given problem. In the meantime, it would probably be smart for some kind of test for recognizable reproduction and for the answers to be thrown out, perhaps with a link to the source material in their place.

There's also a point, however, where the same code is likely to be reproduced regardless of training. Mathematical formulas and algorithms come to mind. If there's only one good solution to a problem, even humans are likely to come up with the same code without even seeing each others output. It seems like there's a grey area here which we need to find some way to account for. Granted this is probably the exception, rather than the rule.

> It's almost as if wholesale copyright violations were the entire business model.

If I had to guess, this is probably a case where businesses are pushing something out sooner than it should have been. I find it unlikely that any business is truly basing their model on something which is so obviously illegal. I'm fully willing to believe, however, that they're willing to ignore specific instances of unintentional copyright infringement until they're forced to do something about it. I'm no corporate apologist. I just don't want to see us throw this technology away because it has problems which still need solving.

The legality of their behavior is not currently well defined, because it's unprecedented. Fair use permits transformative works. It has yet to be decided whether LLMs and their output qualify as transformative, or even if the training is capable of infringing copyright of an individual work in the first place if they're not reproducing it. In fact, there's a good amount of evidence which indicates that fair use _does_ apply, given how Google operates and what they've argued successfully (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_10,_Inc._v._Amazon.com...).

Purchasing licenses when you are already entitled to your current use of the work is just bad business, especially when the legal precedent hasn't been set to know what rights might need to exist in said license.

You might not like the idea of your blog posts or other publicly posted materials being used to train LLMs, but that doesn't make it illegal (morality is subjective and I'm not about to argue one way or another). If it's really that much of a problem, you _do_ have the ability to remove your information from public accessibility, or otherwise protect it against LLM ingestion (IP restrictions, etc.).

edit: I am not a lawyer (this is likely obvious to any lawyers out there); this is my personal take.

1) If your blog posts are private, why are they on publicly accessible websites? Why not put it behind a paywall of some sort?

2) How many novels have bibliographies? How many musicians cite their influences? Citing sources is all well and good in academic papers, but there’s a point at which it just becomes infeasible. The more transformative the work, the harder it is to cite inspiration.

3) What about libraries? Should they be licensing every book they have in their collections? Should the people who check the books out have to pay royalties to learn from them?

LLMs don’t memorize everything they’re trained on verbatim, either. It’s all vectors behind the scenes, which is relatable to how the human brain works. It’s all just strong or weak connections in the brain.

The output is what matters. If what the LLM creates isn’t transformative, or public domain, it’s infringement. The training doesn’t produce a work in itself.

Besides that, how much original creative work do you really believe is out there? Pretty much all art (and a lot of science) is based on prior work. There are true breakthroughs, of course, but they’re few and far between.

If Perplexity’s source code is downloaded from a public web site or other repository, and you take the time to understand the code and produce your own novel implementation, then yes. Now, if you “get it from a friend”, illegally, _or_ you just redeploy the code, without creating a transformative work, then there’s a problem.

> Just pay the stupid license and if that makes your business unsustainable then it's not much a business is it?

In the persona of a business owner, why pay for something that you don’t legally, need to pay for? The question of how copyright applies to LLMs and other AI is still open. They’d be fools to buy licenses before it’s been decided.

More importantly, we’re potentially talking about the entire knowledge of humanity being used in training. There’s no-one on earth with that kind of money. Sure, you can just say that the business model doesn’t work, but we’re discussing new technologies that have real benefit to humanity, and it’s not just businesses that are training models this way.

Any decision which hinders businesses from developing models with this data will hinder independent researchers 10 fold, so it’s important that we’re careful about what precedent is set in the name of punishing greedy businessmen.

There’s a lot more cost involved in running a library than buying books. Staff and building upkeep are big expenses. That said, you want to have some newer books coming in, too, if you want to keep kids interested.

When I was 9, the librarian was the scary lady in the corner that yelled at me if I so much as coughed.

This was exactly my experience. It’s incredibly frustrating to search documentation only to be stuck with examples that are related, but don’t fit one’s exact situation, and don’t explain the underlying behavior.

I read the original comment as recommending against putting _anything_ in $HOME. Your solution is far more palatable.

I can’t tell if this is sarcasm or not.

$HOME is the one directory which belongs to the user. In some cases, it might even be encrypted with a user-owned key. I can’t imagine being comfortable putting my files anywhere _outside_ of the home directory. That feels like going back to the DOS / Win3.x days where hard drives were the wild west.

The little toe’s most important function is to remind its owner that even the most advanced being on earth can be thwarted by an inanimate object, such as the leg of a coffee table.

This take is terrifying to me. Obviously we all have things that we don’t want to be exposed to, and probably many things that we don’t feel anyone should be exposed to, but who gets to make the decision of what is acceptable and what isn’t?

Bias and financial interests in speech and content are more rampant, now, than they have ever been. I don’t trust anyone but myself to “save” me from seeing what I can only describe as “wrongthink”.

Most of them are probably bots running without the knowledge of the IP owner. There’s little benefit to sharing those IPs with anyone other than the provider who owns them.

It seems like the Rust community is quite happy to support alternative shells. I’ve seen couple of projects, now, that support way more esoteric shells than I would expect, like ’xonsh’. Starship (https://starship.rs/) immediately comes to mind.