embedding-shape

> When have we seen anything like this?

The US canal and railroad boom in the 1800s definitely had exactly the same thing happening, just compared to our scale today where everything is "more" and "bigger", it looks comparatively small. But in their world, back then, it was basically the same thing, just with canals and railroads. Indiana almost financially ruined itself because of their "infrastructure program". The government got involved heavily with the "1862 Pacific Railway Act" as well.

And yes, easy to say now that "Duh, that's essentially infrastructure" but at the time, that wasn't as obvious to everyone, as and railroad were newfangled technology, especially deployed like that, on a scale never seen before.

> The amount of money flowing and the sheer scale of all of this stuff is without precedent. We are seeing governments from the local to federal level literally shift their economies because of all the speculation.

Yes, the absolute numbers might now read TRILLION instead of BILLION or MILLION, but the concept of "Technology so impactful governments shift their economies" is in no way new, and has already happened a bunch of times before in humanity's timeline.

I guess that's why you're seeing some of us less stressed out about it, as again, scale is different, because scale today is different in everything, but relatively, we're just repeating another of those "Technology changes everything" milestones that we've done before.

How on earth does the article no address the title? Literally the first paragraph basically "spoils" the entire article and you have your answer, then you can continue reading for more justification of why it was like X before but now it's like Y.

Some things are impossible to just tack on or work around though, like MCP, while other things, can be done by just composing stuff.

Like sub-agents, you could just instruct pi/any harness with a user prompt/system prompt to start new invocations of itself, if you share what the exact command is, and pi or any other harness will do their own poor man's version of sub-agent via standard unix programs.

> So language police.

Is it "language police" that if you say "bomb" on an airplane, people might take that very seriously and you might get in legal trouble? Is that people's personal "language preference" or might there be some other implication behind some of the words in some contexts?

The difference is for others than "engineers" (software developers), where there is an expectation of certain quality when they hear someone call themselves "engineer". Just like the title "doctor" carries a certain expectation.

Wow, I think disagreeing with a lockdown in the face of a pandemic is pretty fucking stupid but even so, freezing people's bank accounts is even more messed up and should not happen over any sort of non-violent political actions in a modern democracy. Seems unblocked now, but still that seems like a bananas reaction.

For reference as I hadn't heard about it before:

> Isabelle Jacques, assistant deputy minister of finance, told a committee of MPs that up to 210 bank accounts holding about $7.8 million were frozen under the financial measures contained in the Emergencies Act. - https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/emergency-bank-measures-fin...

Are you saying the US government been implementing sanctions to make right wing activists not be able to receive bank transfers? That sounds like friendly fire and backwards, are you sure you understood the "source" correctly?

Hook this up into the facial recognition tech they're in no doubt are already using, and then you could also collect data from people's social profiles, ensure they vote for the right parties and generally don't get into trouble like opposing mainstream political ideas and such things.

I've spent a whole of 15 seconds thinking about this and I don't foresee a single drawback here, lets just try it and see if we can prevent future crimes 100%, because then the future will have been saved.

> The practical check is the one the data endorses: when a knife recommendation comes from an account you do not recognize, click through and see whether it has ever named a different brand.

This isn't even most of the times possible, since both humans and bot alike on Reddit now hides their comment/submission history, so it just shows a blank page.

No, I think it's best to just default to assuming everyone is a bot, so to say, and read everything critically regardless of what the source may be.

Especially considering the user was mad about the agent doing stuff by itself, so it tried to "fix" this by sending an apology to the buyer without explicit approval of the person "running" the agent, seemingly understanding nothing from the conversation.

Wonder what quantization Meta runs these models on, Q4?

I initially found screenshots of this on Bluesky, figured I'd link to the original source given Threads seems to at least allow us to read without logging in.

With that said, in case Threads isn't available for whatever reason, I've uploaded screenshots of everything (I think?) here: https://imgur.com/a/mceW9WF

> Any advice for what I can do?

Email that author (email can usually be found via GitHub, or contact via other private way they've shared somewhere) and explain the situation, don't lambast them publicly on social media or similar ways. If that doesn't work, do the same but for another maintainer. Don't spam all of them straight up, wait a week or something before contacting someone else.

Did you try actually watching the video and timestamp? It's pointed to a specific place in the video where they walk past a frame containing something similar (the same?) as what is mentioned in the submission, with mirroring of the person filming etc.

Again, not sure what makes people believe I don't like the approach or disagree with it, I was just replying what the reason could be to parent commentator. My previous comment has no negativity or anything, and you're barking up the wrong tree here.

I don't see my comment suggesting that at all? Personally I like the approach, and felt it was a positive approach when I made my comment, apparently it reads very differently than that.

Sorry, didn't mean it like "yelling", I'm quite a fan of socialism and don't see it as any negative. I didn't think anything in my comment was negative.

Is it possible they're doing a research lab "socialism style" and everyone gets equal credit for just being a part of the lab, regardless of actual input into the specific papers? If they're innovating in computer, maybe they're not so afraid of innovating in social/academic structures as well?

Borderline off-topic, but Prague also have a "Paternoster Lift" (https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/paternoster-lift-at-prag...) that seems well-maintained that I've always wanted to visit, but haven't had the chance yet.

> suddenly the news came about of AI going rogue, like what we've seen from the recent hacks

Commented on a story about how these agents didn't go rogue at all, since it's fucking software run by humans, obvious to most of us except the people who freak out.

Someone really needs to be held responsible for the testing that lead to 3rd party infrastructure getting hacked by the software they wrote, using prompts they wrote.

No, outages is when you start experimenting with local models and catch up what's new since last outage. If you're a power user, you end up getting to play with local models every week!

> If we are on the brink of Kessler Syndrome in LEO I would expect market pricing to reflect that.

Wouldn't the market pricing only reflect this after that fact? Up until it happens and no one knows any better, business will continue as usual because otherwise numbers don't go up. Like any past financial crisis, things look fine until they don't.

If it's using the same weird (and awful) "backend prompt encryption" pattern and mechanism that Codex also uses (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48905028), then I'd also say it points to OpenAI being involved. Hopefully that shit isn't becoming a more popular pattern, absolutely awful for troubleshooting stuff.

Personally I don't find the incentives of the only developer team working on something to be irrelevant to me as a user, if I'm looking for a long-term solution. Self-hosting/on-prem still seems like the only sensible solution here.

I think the notion persists because they are seemingly still using a DAO as the governance structure, so the organization sits on top of a cryptocurrency (is the idea of DAOs at least, in practice it isn't always so).

Point out what verbatim piece of text forbids any and all usage of LLMs for coding and having that project on Codeberg?

Literally the first "informal guidelines" (subject to change of course) states:

> Projects who have an active community that cares about and maintains the software

You can use LLMs for development + fulfill this requirement, contrary to popular belief.

They want to get rid of slop projects and vibe coders, not any project that has any developer that used any LLM. But again, requires you to read through the actual text to actually get their intention here.

Man I was so excited about Tangled, until they announced they sought and got VC investments, which makes it not even worth looking into for long-term projects. I still wish them luck and hope they'll be the lonely 0.1% that can resist enshittification even during pressure from investors, but realistically my hope is fairly close to the bottom.

Radicle seems better in that regards, but instead is on top of their own cryptocurrency, which comes with its own issues.

Personally my best hope is still "real" federation across centralized services, ala ForgeFed, but ideally we can make all these approaches interoperate in the future, that would be really awesome.

> I predict that Codeberg will soon realize that they have no choice but to loosen and allow AI generated code.

I predict that eventually people will read the linked blog post and realize Codeberg already allows AI generated code. But this requires reading and nuance of course, which is hard to come by sometimes, so I guess we'll continue see misinformed comments like this until eventually the web is only autonomous agents.

Remove/changing functionality in a way that the original use case you had for the device, no longer applies, because of a forced software update or user agreement you have to accept, should let people return the hardware regardless of when it was purchased. Bananas that this is still legal for companies to do.

> The policy being fuzzy is in itself a problem

No, the policy being fuzzy is a feature, because they're not 100% against all LLM usage, they're against slop and AI-spam, which is what they're trying to combat.

Laws are fuzzy, and we're doing mostly fine with this, of course there are edge-cases. But that's exactly why laws are fuzzy in the first place.

If you have a "automated software factory" or whatever the vibe-coders are up to today, then yes, Codeberg is probably not for you. But if you sit with a agent TUI in one tab, review things closely and don't just "throw code over the wall" without reviewing it, you have nothing to worry about with hosting code on Codeberg.

Yeah, waiting for this too, feels like the final piece of the puzzle. Tracking issue from Codeberg + more general information about the effort around the the ecosystem:

- https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/59 ("[FEAT] implement federation")

- https://forgefed.org/