428 karma · joined August 21, 2016
PHP is not like that, like in every other language where you can control the entire environment, it evolves and things break, and that's the way it should be, that's why we have semantic versioning.
Rector is a very nice project, but I still haven't gotten around to integrating it into our codebase at work, because it uses phpstan instead of Psalm, and apart from being slower than Psalm, phpstan kept having various issues and crashes while scanning our codebase, unlike Psalm which mostly worked out of the box (I even became maintainer of Psalm, due to the large amount of additional performance improvements I added due to our needs @ work).
At work, we're currently using Psalm with a few extensions that make some autofixes as needed, a bit like Rector.
Upgrading a codebase to PHP 8 is not an insurmountable task, I've upgraded our 1 million SLOC codebase at work in just a few weeks, with the help of tools like https://psalm.dev and our own strict coding standard.
Gojekyll currently supports the github pages, sass, jemoji, sitemap, feed, redirect, seo tag and avatar plugins, among others, see https://github.com/osteele/gojekyll/blob/main/docs/plugins.m... for the full list.
(Well actually not completely ignoring DoH, there's another not-yet-applied Italian law that requires ISPs to completely ban DoH, but it has kind of gone under the radar since it's essentially inapplicable without DPI (and even then, the upcoming ECH standard will make it practically impossible to block DoH providers that use ECH))
In typical Italian style, the blocklists are actually published as a set of HTML articles on various government websites, that must be scraped and parsed by the ISPs using toolkits like https://github.com/mphilosopher/censura.
The latest proposal now additionally requires acknowledgement through PEC, i.e. domains to block will be sent by rightholders through certified emails to ISPs, and upon processing them ISPs *must* send an acknowledgment in the form of another certified email within 30 minutes, or else sanctions will follow.
This latest proposal has rightfully caused an uproar of the ISPs in groups like itnog (https://t.me/IT_NOG/106605/106606), considering that most PEC providers only offer a few GBs of space, there's already a high risk of ack emails being lost (with subsequent sanctions), not to mention that the concept of automating domain distribution and acknowledgment using email instead of a simple JSON-RPC API is ridiculous, but that's what you get when bureaucrats make technical proposals :)
Multimaster replication is convenient, but if you accidentally add the IP of the current replica to the replicaset, the entire cluster will crash if any of the nodes shuts down for any reason (note, not immediately, but days or even weeks after starting the cluster with everything working perfectly until one of the nodes crashes or shuts down).
Enabling diskless replication in multimaster mode causes either deadlocks, or immediate crashes, depending on the overall LA of the system (!).
These are just the issues I remember right now, because the related issues I opened in the repo are still open almost a year later; we had other crashes we had to workaround, too.
The same could be asked to any writer pre-AI, asking them to prove that they did not offload their job to a ghost writer, and that is actually not impossibile to prove, just talk with the person IRL ;)
Still, society is going down a terrible path with LLMs, a path filled with misinformation and meaningless garbage.
I believe common sense will prevail and legal limitations will be imposed, to avoid both the spread of misinformation and the degeneration of our culture (and this has already happened in the US, where you can't copyright AI-generated content).
You literally picked the closest thing to AI-generated content, soulless statistics-driven garbage, literally the first thing that will be automated by AI in corporate media ;)
> You can be creative all you want, it doesn't mean other people will care or want to consume the creative products you produce.
If there are any people at all with my same worldview (and there are, outside of HN of course), people will want to enjoy creations made by a human, not by a corporate AI. Either way, as I said, the absence of a market does not affect in any way my will to create ;)
1) That is a horribly denigrative view of human creativity, one that simply does not reflect reality.
2) I kind of don't care: creativity always was and always will be about humans wanting to create something, the satisfaction and excitement of writing down a fanfic you've been thinking about for the last 3 weeks, the emotion of bringing your thoughts to life. Even with endless AI-generated content, I will never stop using my imagination (regardless of whether there will or won't be a market for it, and regardless of whether it may be worse than, say, dostoevskij's works), and the same holds true for every other creative individual on this planet, and I feel sorry for the people that never felt the feeling of creative excitement, and would rather waste years of their life consuming soulless content.
Well, multi-million dollar fines are also very effective ;)
> I wish my country would stop abiding by the inane regulations
I'm also from the EU, and my wish is actually the opposite, I believe a more federated EU with less nationalism will only do good to every EU country.
GDPR, USB-C standardization and soon right-to-repair (mandatory removable batteries :3) regulation is proof of how effective good legislation can be when enacted by a powerful entity like the EU.
> Just... why.
Because I feel this way, I'm not the only one to feel this way, and I strongly believe my view is morally correct :)
Not that I have anything against cel shaded 3d, it looks very nice when done properly, but I still see no major shift from hand-drawn animation in the anime industry.
Given the alternative of cheaper, semiautomated 2d animation, anime studios prefer handcrafting every single frame, instead, because some people really like drawing, and a large amount of people also likes watching handcrafted, high-quality animation with wonderful stories and visuals.
This isn't some kind of superpower, anyone can look at Munch's Scream and recognize a feeling of anxiety.
My example was a very specific one, to provide a direct example of how, in some specific pieces of human artwork, the emotions an artist is trying to transmit will come through the screen.
Not all drawn art speaks with the same clarity of Munch's scream, but when it does, it's impressive.
Other mediums like storytelling also make a lot more explicit the emotions the authors are trying to evoke in us.
> You care about the author, great. Some don't give a rat's ass about the author. Are those people unable to appreciate art? If they are capable why do you insist on knowing intent being necessary for art?
I don't quite understand your points here, I actually don't think you're even trying to make any points here, but I think the proper answer would be to treat the result of human creativity not as a product to consume and forget, but as an experience of interaction with a set of passionate human beings.
This is how I experience art, and I'm sure a lot of other people experience it the same way: not as a product, but as art.
At the very least, I know for a fact that every member of my family also feels the same, and that gives me confidence that the majority outside of the HN/tech bubble also feels the same.
> Ah, well we are lucky that you, the one that sees, is here to tell us the TRUTH.
I stand by my words, I believe they're an accurate representation of reality.
People can be blinded by the technical awesomeness of something they've created, without thinking of the potentially disastrous consequences for society: it has happened many times throughout history (especially in war-related scenarios).
> Yes, of course, it is violence
I fail to see how majority-driven legislative action is an act of violence.
Mine was an (I believe correct) prediction of how things will go in a normal society that values human creativity, legislative action will rightfully limit the competitiveness of AI in certain creative sectors, to also prevent an overall societal degradation.
I really don't want to punch you or any AI researcher as it would be quite pointless, I'd much rather vote for politicians against creative AI, as that is the only proper way to trigger change in a democratic society.
From your messages, I infer you do not come from a truly democratic country, but rather a country where the government is just a corrupt and violent mouthpiece for corporations and criminals: I understand how this might impact your political and world view, but also please understand that most developed countries apart from the US (ie pretty much just the EU) are multipartisan democracies, with actually democratic elections and democratically elected governments that actually do a pretty good job at doing the right thing for the people in terms of legislation and market regulation, this is the reason why I'm confident that at least the EU will make the sensible choice in regards to AI (once it catches up with the times, hopefully soon enough).
Assuming AI even comes close to being a threat for the human creative industry, which isn't a given due to the lack of a supply problem to solve (unlike for automation in the physical world, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34277750)
For example, looking at some drawn art, I can pinpoint exactly what emotions the artist was trying to transmit, not necessarily by the expression of the characters but even just by how the piece itself is drawn: that's the whole point of human artistic intent.
Another reason why human intent is important for me, from my comments below: when I read an amazing story like the Iron Widow, I feel respect towards the skills of the author, excitement for her future plans for the sequel; I follow the author on twitter and maybe interact a bit, because I appreciate what that human made me feel.
This is all part of the experience for me: I can't do the same for a GPT story, because even if it was generated from multiple human stories, there is no actual human intent behind it; no one to thank, and no one to blame in case of messups: it feels like an empty shell.
It's this true emptiness that quickly made me stop playing around with GPT when I first discovered it: anything made with it feels like an empty shell to me.
Regarding legislation, I see I have struck some chords here ;). Nothing personal, but I really think the people supporting AI models are really naive in thinking any democratic government will be willing to let entire creative industries suffocate (not to mention the potential for degradation of society as a whole) just because AI models are very cool technology and human creativity is supposedly irrelevant: just look at anti-delocalization trends in politics and legislation anywhere in the world, and draw some conclusions by yourself.
Not all people are blinded by the awesomeness of a new technology, and even those who created it will realize that they too will be eventually replaced by it.
Even if AI were to disrupt entire industries the way delocalization did, until local lawmakers catch up, I think creatives will keep creating regardless, will organize together, form new streaming services and keep creating, because a creative job is something you want to do, not just have to do, like any other assembly line manual job.
I still think passion will make a difference in a post-AI world, even in the worst-case scenario of no legislative action against AI (which is unlikely, looking even just at the current anti-delocalization movement in global politics and lawmaking).
More exclusively commercial and product-driven creative jobs like programming may be impacted more by AI competition than purely creative jobs though (still, I still would've gotten into programming as a kid even with AI competition, simply because it's fun to come up with solutions to problems).
Cool, next time I read a GPT story with an ending I don't like I'll know to blame the soul of humanity :P
> When it makes a good story I am very happy because it means I found a path into its deeper levels.
I understand the excitement, but again, it's the same excitement of say, finding and correctly executing a cool chess move.
It's not the same excitement of a book ending on an epic cliffhanger, wondering how and if the author will manage to save our brave heroes.
Like a kaleidoscope, it can be fun to recognize familiar patterns and beautiful colors, but it's nothing more than that: a toy.
What I look for in art is intent and human passion; for me, the excitement of suddenly getting a nice number out of a PRNG or a cool story out of GPT is a very different from experiencing a story passionately crafted by a human.
When I read an amazing story like the Iron Widow, I feel respect towards the skills of the author, excitement for her future plans for the sequel; I follow the author on twitter and maybe interact a bit, because I appreciate what that human made me feel.
I can't do the same for a GPT story, because even if it was generated from multiple human stories, there is no actual human intent behind it; no one to thank, and no one to blame in case of messups: it feels like an empty shell.
Netflix wastes the billions it earns on the really good productions like Arcane into hundreds of garbage statistics-driven shows canceled after the first seasons, because some people like watching meaningful, intent-filled stories made by passionate humans, and others just want anything to play in the background while doing other stuff.
And this is precisely why AI art will not be the end of human creativity: humans will keep creating, and other people will like watching the passionate work of other humans, not randomly generated garbage.