clhodapp

So, the author gave the model single sentence prompts like "Balatro, but for the game of coin flips" plus generic encouragement like "make it better" three times ended up with netlify-hostable web games each time? That is hard for me to believe.

It's likely that at least some amount of additional context was provided to the model to enable it to reliably create the desired form factor. This introduces the caveat that the author probably views some amount of context as being trivial / beneath the level of mentioning. But then the question becomes where they draw the line.

In the age of AI, perhaps it will be more common to see major forks of open-source projects emerge, with the upstream back-porting a few of the larger features themselves because they're impressed at what the fork is able to do, as opposed to the fork making PR's back into the upstream.

Essentially every keyboard key is mechanical. Most "mechanical keyboards" are using Cherry MX or Cherry MX-like key switches.

The key switches in these are as different in design from a Cherry MX switch as a Cherry MX switch is from a rubber dome.

In the second half of last year, I found that agentic coding with proprietary models (≈ vibe coding) reached the point where it actually speeds up my ability to deliver useful code at work. Before that, AI-based autocomplete definitely helped, but (despite the claims of the people selling AI coding tools) letting an agent author more than a file or so at a time (often a function or so at a time) required a very intricate plan or it would create a mess. Creating that plan or cleaning up the mess would take longer than just doing everything myself.

For me, it feels like widely available open models have recently crossed that same canyon. Are they as good as e.g. late-model Claude Opus? I don't think so. But they have absolutely gotten past the point where they are beneficial. This means that, for me, they are about six months behind.

| Technically, once a model is initialised, that's it. That is a model. If released, that would be, even for the most pedantic absolutists, undoubtably open source.

That is true. But it is not the same model as the LLM created by combining the released weights with the released architecture. The thing that is the "binary blob" is the weights. It is pretty much exactly akin to a Linux driver that depends on linux-firmware. It is wonderful that it exists! But it is only partly open.

| Now, what licensing does, and the only thing that licensing can do is to give you rights to inspect, modify and release that model. That's it. A license will never give you (it cannot) the right to have the internal IP, knowledge, know-how or the "why's" on how the model was edited. That's on you. You have the right to modify, but you can't get the right to know how others have modified it, from a license file. Never had, never will.

| In practice, we do have fully open (open data, open training code, open source models) models. Apertus, from Switzerland and Olmo from the US. Don't get me wrong, it's absolutely great that we have these models, they are very important for the community, and they do help inform everyone about what works, what doesn't, and so on.

You seem to contradict yourself here. That said: I appreciate the correction of my perception that there aren't truly open large language models.

I know it comes off as pedantic to point this out but: Those are open weight models not open source models.

Closed weight models are the equivalent of SaaS. Open weight models are the equivalent of binary driver blobs or Windows software. We don't really have actual open source LLMs, which would need to publicly release their training data and technique so you could train a similar model yourself, or use their work as a baseline for your own model.

This distinction matters because an actual open source LLM would be extremely important from an ecosystem point of view, if someone ever actually released one.

Models not being able to reliably know if they are out of their depth is a foundational limitation of the currently generation of models, though.

Best they can do is to somewhat reliably react to objective signals that they've failed at something (like test failures).

I believe they're referring to the fact that if almost all of your code is written by junior developers without mentorship, you will end up wasting a lot of your development budget because your codebase is a mess.

They kind of actually are, though.

Not because they use CSV's but because, as an industry, they have not figured out how to reliably create, exchange, and parse well-formed CSV's.

It depends. On its own, UBI puts a downward pressure on the value of money. Some other things (e.g. setting low interest rates) also put a downward pressure on the value of money. However, some things (e.g. taxes) put an upward pressure on the value of money. So it comes down to how all of those factors balance out.

Yep. It's the difference between "Don't do these things, regardless of what the law says." and "Do whatever you want, but please follow your own laws while you do it".

As Paul Graham said, "Sam gets what he wants" and "He’s good at convincing people of things. He’s good at getting people to do what he wants." and "So if the only way Sam could succeed in life was by [something] succeeding, then [that thing] would succeed"

I don't think any business can survive being told that they can't buy from their major suppliers or sell to major customers for very long.

As you said: focus on what it does.

What it does is prevent companies that Anthropic needs to do business with from doing business with Anthropic.

It is in the specific case that you don't have biometric or PIN login set up on the device and you use a password manager that doesn't require authentication. In that case, the only factor is "something you have". Otherwise, it is still a multi-factor authentication because the device itself still represents "something you have", and your device unlock represents "something you know" or "something you are".

There's a very short blog post up: https://blog.google/innovation-and-ai/models-and-research/ge...

Good point. Perhaps if you take them for 40 years, you become biologically immortal. Who can really say?

Having AI spew it might suffer from the fact that the spew itself is influenced by AI's weights. I think your best bet would be to use a new human-authored work that was released after the model's context cutoff.

And of course the benchmarks are from the school of "It's better to have a bad metric than no metric", so there really isn't any way to falsify anyone's opinions...

For many of us, you are describing a black hole of integrated nightmare software

If not for the tariffs, the domestic company would have to charge lower prices to make sales. Thus tariffs provide domestic companies with additional revenue from domestic consumers.

He's broken pretty much all the other financial rules.... for example, the amount of blatant self-dealing he gets away with is staggering.

As long as the consequences of his actions continue to increase the paper value for investors, regulations don't really have teeth because there aren't damages. So the snowball gets bigger and the process repeats.

IMO the word "just" is probably the most loaded words in technical argument

The point is that before walled-garden app stores, that was how pretty much every normal person installed software on their PC's. Using the term "sideloading" for that is a clever invention to try and retroactively rebrand what is actually super-normal as something scary.

The EU hate GrapheneOS. They chased them out to Canada just last year because they didn't want to put in backdoors for law enforcement.

Has there ever actually been a success story for using end user mobile handsets as servers?

Any expression-value can be a function, if you simply define the meaning of applying the the expression-value to another expression-value to be something compatible with your definition of a function.

Nit: If predators periodically make their way to the islands without human assistance, don't the islands have native predators, by virtue of how we've woven ourselves into the definitions?

They get less hot (especially the network adapters on the ends of them), can go a lot further, can be a lot denser (including being able to carry things other than Ethernet in the same bundle), and are a lot more future-proof (unless the cable jacket literally crumbles at the slightest movement in a few years).

I think it's definitely a clear definition of what you're doing, but I still take some issue with the framing of "UI pixels". I would argue that it's more like abstract "UI distance units."

Most UI's are designed to be "right-sized" for humans with a "distance unit" being about 1/96th of an inch (when the display is the designer-expected distance from the user). If you deviate too far from this, things end up being really big or really small and the display is harder to use. What you're effectively doing when you enable "2x scaling" is setting the "abstract distance unit" that gets applied to UIs to be the size of two display pixels, rather than one display pixel. Whether this is a good thing to do and is more or less "native", IMO, depends on the DPI of the display.

Given that there isn't any objective basis for the default scaling factor of a monitor being what we call 1x, I would argue that 2x scaling isn't any less native than 1x