fedeb95

1) costs? 2) profits/costs?

it includes an anti-urination idea for outdoors, which may be worth noting.

There is a false dichotomy here. There are people who view code as "art", in the sense outlined here, and yet rely on LLMs for some tasks.

I've always loved audacity, but have always found its editing workflow to be hard to use. This seems an improvement.

P.S.: I don't care for looks, but UX seems better. I will try it.

that's very true for reviews of products, the classical five stars. Even with comments, they are seldom more than a data point, and stars themselves are given with very different meanings by different people.

So when reviewing reviews, care is needed. Simply picking the product that maximizes stars and number of reviews is a bad metric for the quality of a product, that is, for what your perceived quality of that product will be.

That's why I look at two things: 1) distribution of reviews; if frequency of stars decreases monotonically with star number, it is probably a good product, and I look at 3/4 star reviews for pro and cons; 2) if the distribution has a spike in the 1 or 2 stars, I further investigate to see what the problems are, regardless of number of reviews or how many five star the product has.

So far has worked great on Amazon.

the point is that almost nobody will read the book just to verify an internet comment. If you can provide some resources cited in the book it would be better... but this reasoning can be applied to 99% of comments here. At least you provided a book.

This happens nearly every year in Italy.

Someone said that it's because we humans are very good at reacting at immediate danger and very bad at reacting at risks building up slowly.

I don't know if it is true, but by today still voting for parties denying climate change all the way and that have done nothing in past years to prevent this type of risks is crazy.

Now we just need to add x402 and we have a startup.

I think you should provide better use case scenarios that make clear why this project is useful.

I can already change AC and lock doors with two buttons, why it should be better to do it by voice? Pressing those buttons is way faster.

I guess the manual RAG is useful, what I am saying is that use cases aren't clear from your post or README. As it is, one reads it as "cool, LLM in a car", and skips it.

That's why I have two remotes

origin --> codeberg github --> github

I may add others. Redundancy is a good thing.

because on one hand you have many citizens that hardly can organize themselves and with few resources, on the other a big company funded by other big companies. The law isn't the same for everyone.

It is open, but they open it for you.

They are basically trying to pursue a model copyright.

That's funny, because they made their models exactly because of open stuff on the web.

But they will loose this battle. There is no way to technically avoid open models to be created, so they will be created.

wait just three more months and software engineers will be out of job on time.

humans are way better at managing big contexts than a machine. The human mind is way more complex than any AI model + infrastructure.

the point I see is that even if you automate all that is possible to automate, there are some core activities that can't be delegated to machines in order for a product to feel very good. May it be the design, or whatever: I don't have an opinion on which aspect must be curated by a human, but some aspect has to. Maybe this aspect is simply AI review and prompting, or AI infrastructure creation and maintenance... I don't know. But the point is that this part of production exists, and it's what makes a useful product something you want to buy more than another useful product.

this is about open hardware.

You really don't need to build a Kobo clone. By being open, you can fit your needs. If your needs are already covered by Kobo, that's fine.

I can't believe someone shares my point of view. We have already many non humanoid robots to do boring stuff (underwater maintenance, stuff like that). For some reasons people tend to think that for robots to do stuff close to humans, we need human like robots.

We do not. I want a swarm of insects-like robots to fight mosquitos. A snake one that fixes my pipe. A spider-like robot that cleans surfaces. Etc.

I use AI a lot but am not addicted to it. I know it seems something every addict would say, but simply it makes things faster. You can't really take responsibility for something it makes that you don't already know how it operates, or how should operate. That's the line between what you can sell to your client, or your boss, without it blowing up in your face when things go wrong. In theory everything I build with AI I can build by hand, but in many more days.

A builder is not addicted to their tools, but he won't certainly start a project without them, if they are available. Yet, he could work without some of them. Give a circular saw to someone that can't use it, and nothing good comes out of it. Give AI to a non coder, and nothing good (that lasts) will come out of it.

Yes, I was mostly agreeing with the article ;)

First year CD student excited to learn puts together a website, and more experienced guys makes a shitty comment that puts things into context. Then someone makes a funny comment mimicking its structure. Is that correct?

AI is a tool. Stop treating it as something different.

The value you can extract from a tool depends on your skill in using it, and knowing when not using it.

this study is not related to powerlifting or heavy activity in that sense, so it's not pertinent as a context, if anything it is pertinent to understand misinterpretations of the study.

this does not imply that words are a byproduct of consciousness.

That may be true without implying that words are a always a byproduct of consciousness. You can dream words.

read the study more carefully if you think it encourages powerlifting for the elders.

The study is conducted on 123 people.

this doesn't imply that words are a byproduct of consciousness.

That words are a byproduct of consciousness is a bold claim and requires some justification. I'm not implying it's backwards also for humans, but that the statement might not be true, and something else could be. Also, defining consciousness is hard.

For instance, you can dream words.

I think most people forget the graph-like nature of scientific research. You don't have n useful papers and m useless ones by themselves, you have an interconnection of those. There may be isolated cliques of uselessness, but there isn't a clear correlation between academia and private research.

Many ideas come from philosophy, which many find useless.

Heraclitus discovered change back in ancient Greek, I don't know where we would be in scientific research without that (deliberately ignoring the debate about the originality of what we know about Heraclitus work). I bet his contemporaries found his "research" useless.