fluoridation

I've done it. I don't agree that it's therapeutic.

Your behavior is even stranger than that which you are questioning. The fact you take the time to type out the response means you also feel the urge to respond, and that urge is strong enough that you don't stop yourself before starting, even though you know you are likely to just delete before sending. It's odd that you would ask why someone would reply to a comment when you should already understand why someone would do that: because they feel the same urge you do, and don't have the compulsion to stop themselves before sending.

Why did that have to be transported in a thumb drive? It can't have been more than a few hundred megabytes at the most, right?

Yeah, I think the ideal AI user for coding is the one who is not so ignorant that they can't even explain what they want done, but not so knowledgeable that they could simply do it themselves. It's like a crutch: if you don't have legs it's completely useless, but it can let you hobble around if yours don't work perfectly, and if they do work then it's also pretty much useless.

I'm pretty sure the company that owns the compute is the one paying for the power. Who would agree to have an ugly noisy cube in their property that they have to pay maintenance for? What would they get out of that deal?

It didn't work. DeepSeek failed to load on LM Studio due to a tensor format error. I don't have the time to do deeper troubleshooting. Qwen 3.8 Next did work, but the performance was abysmal.

Thanks, I'll give that a try. I basically have the same use case, only on Strix Halo.

Interesting, I had assumed it'd be too large to fit. What quant and context size are you running?

It's also possible if contributors agree to waive rights to their contributions, thus having multiple contributors and a single rights holder.

Correct. We can either accept the claim or disregard it. The comment I replied to opted to accept it and then committed a fallacy, hence my response.

Okay, but the anecdote states that every model repeated the pseudo-factoid about Foobar square, not just the 4 GB open source model equivalent of a tabloid.

Yes, of that I'm sure. This optimization is only possible if the compiler has control of both sides of a call. If the function may be callable from other translation units or modules I imagine it generates a thin wrapper that's externally callable.

N/RVO works by (at the machine language level, of course) rewriting the function signature to return void and take an extra pointer parameter, which is written to before returning. If you're returning a newly-constructed object, the compiler can rewrite that into calling the constructor on the pointer, but if you're returning a named object, the class may have a non-trivial destructor that needs to run after the move, such that it's not possible to rewrite uses of the local object into uses of the pointer.

I'm not too confident on that last part, because such an implementation would mess with semantics in case of an exception, so anyone feel free to correct me on that.

Unfortunately, I don't think there's getting away from just understanding value semantics to get the correct and/or performant behavior.

So they go for a wildly shitty LLM translation?

>It's reference material of all sorts. Technical books, manuals, software localizations, etc.

Yes, I covered that under "formulaic content". As I've already said, a lot of this was already done decades ago. East Asian manuals and copies using machine translation are kind of a meme. Human translators are not losing any work from this. These are all businesses that were never going to employ a translator to begin with; it was either machine translation or nothing.

>Second, you vastly overestimate the desire that book publishers have to pay for good translations. I've seen books from reputable European publishers that were (badly) machine-translated by a contracted translator keen to dig their own grave. Yes, Harry Potter will get a good translation, but 1,000 lesser books won't.

Well, you're not citing any examples, so you you don't give me much to work with. I haven't read a translated book in ages (I don't think), but I do move in circles where translations, human- and machine-made, are freely distributed, and people kick up a fuss over machine translations that they didn't even have to pay for. I can't imagine a paying reader being any kinder upon realizing that they're traded their hard-earned money for machine-produced nonsense. You yourself admit that the translator who does this is digging their own grave. How is this not a problem that corrects itself?

Those people were never going to pay a human translator, though.

Manuals have been machine-translated for ages, well before algorithms were anywhere close to ready for the task. No change there.

>a limited amount of diplomatic communiques

With zero data to support it, I'd bet good money the vast majority of semi-professional translators (that is, those not employed by publishers but still making some money off of their work) work on fiction, translating comics, subtitles, etc.

Actually, come to think of it, mixed media like those will be the last where machine translation will be able to fully take over humans, just because the text doesn't contain the entire relevant context for the job.

AI will definitely not take over translation for a long time. Machine translation has improved to the point it's mostly no longer incoherent, but for non-formulaic content it's still very hit-and-miss, not that much better compared to 10-20 years ago. For example, something they still struggle with is consistently translating terms coined within the text with consistent phrases.

>A budding painter or a musician could support themselves off commissioned / commercial work while working on their grand opus... but now, the customers just prompt gen AI.

Are you joking? The only people I see using generative AI are either companies, shitposters, and spammers. Who are all these people who have stopped paying commissions and moved over to prompting AIs?

The thing is, there is no real evidence to back up the classification. The assignment between words and objects is arbitrary. A consistent definition for "planet" can be given and immediately after define the Solar System as being comprised of nine planets, with the understanding that a "planet" and a "planet of the Solar System" are similar but distinct concepts. The same is already done in biology with paraphyletic groups, with for example "reptiles" not including birds.

(I say this as someone who doesn't care either way whether Pluto is a planet or not.)

>the Moon's orbit is always concave towards the Sun

Huh?

It's human (as an adjective), yes, but it's not a human, because a human is a person, and there is no personhood without a brain.

Is this line of questioning going somewhere? If the next thing you ask is whether a simulated human is a person given that it has a brain (though simulated), I'll preempt you by saying that simulated humans are people.

So it's an exponential with a negative exponent? The thing about those kinds of curves is that since they have asymptotes to zero, it's hard to tell when you've plateaued.

What exponential?

I understand that. That review process is a bridge that imposes a maximum separation between design and implementation (that is to say, they can be separated so far, and no further). The two can't be fully decoupled.

>The current LLMs are making it quite easy to seperate software design from implementation.

I don't really agree. This kind of division of labor has always been possible, with architects doing the design and engineers/programmers doing the implementation. Architects who design systems with lofty requirements with no regard for the cost of their decisions are kind of a meme in the industry. I don't believe it's really possible to separate design from implementation, unless the person specifying the design is really knowledgeable about the problem space.

Should get a second one, then, if that's the meta.

Fair enough. I've only ever used XMPP when Google chat used it and at work in the days before Slack.

What do you mean? You have to accept a friend request before someone can message you. It's more spam-resistant than email, not less. That said, I don't know if there's anything that prevents spamming friend requests.

What are you doing taking on that kind of risk and starting ventures if your earnings are low? I'm sorry, but if you're a delivery boy living from paycheck to paycheck, you should be trying to get an education, not start a business. That's true in Finland and in the US.