wizzledonker

For me, only “a hotel” and “an SQL query” sound correct here

(Edit: I just realised this might be a dialect thing. I say “ess cue ell” and not “sequel”, and “hoe tell” rather than “otel”. Australian accent)

This is why you need to compile your code for spacetimedb to WebAssembly and it runs inside a VM. Use the language of your choice, and assume the code is only semi-trusted with the ability to have a watchdog. That part makes sense.

I use it on Mac - I didn’t notice too much. There’s some GPU usage, I assume Apple still has some deprecated OpenCL drivers kicking around that it knows to use.

> So if you think that there is something salient about humans that can't be reproduced eventually by AI, then look into religious dualism.

Contradicts

> not what I was discussing. I was talking about programming.

To be concrete: my argument is that to

> "simulate humans or reproduce all of human nature"

Is exactly what would be required for an LLM to replace a human as an effective interface for programming. Crazy hill to die on, I know, but that's the goal.

I am purely talking about programming. The reasoning looks something like this.

1. LLMs are undeniably useful as assistants when programming.

2. At some point though, they are leveraged too much. This leads to humans having an inability to reason about the generated code.

3. The LLM now needs to be as good of an interface as a human being to be of any use.

I think most people would agree with this distinction. Where people argue is where the cutoff point lies - and it's actually hard to find. How do you know when you have transitioned between the three stages? It's tempting to say, if the speedup is marginal, it isn't worth the risk.

I guess, just to play devils advocate, what if code turns out to just be the minimally expressive communication medium required for a human to maintain agency over the function of a system?

If we consider (and I’m not saying this is true, just for arguments sake) that this agency is important as other humans enjoy talking to humans about a goal, rather than machines, and we think this will never change.

In this peculiar case, it actually doesn’t matter how “good” llms get - they will never cross a barrier fundamental to human nature?

I think the real issue might be that how “good” the code is matters less than being able to form a mental model for what the human who wrote the code was “thinking”. If written by a machine, this contract is broken and we get more confused, even if our traditional methods of evaluating the code come out equal.

Did you mean 2025?

That is quite literally exactly what they have done

Slightly unrelated: are the OCCT unfolding components a paid add on or included in the open source distribution?

I don't necessarily agree in this case - OCCT is more than capable for what FreeCAD is offering. Add to that the development trajectory of OCCT also seems to be really taking off recently (with the 8.0-RC, they've re-worked how all B-Spline algorithms work, with implications for all operations).

That would require calibration with the camera, and even then the camera and lidar sensor can’t be in exactly the same place. I doubt results would be better.

I'm so confused. Sentry is a native client crash reporting tool. What does this have to do with MCP or the LLM itself? Do you mean when interpreting the crash data?

Qt is not a horrible mess to use, the problem is just people don't bother to learn any tech stack outside web. It's so obvious that this is the issue to anybody who actually does native development.

Qt with QML works fine. The real reason is that companies can't hire enough native developers because the skill is comparitively rare.

Only if they work in a fundamentally different manner. We can't solve that problem the way we are building LLMs now.

Definitely a good one - probably one of the best CLAUDE.md files you can put in any repository if you care about your project at all.

After a cursory glance at commit messages, looks like most of it.

Like all AI co-authored code it’s a matter of time before this becomes unmaintainable and abandoned.

The reason most creative media is good is because you see the vision of a creative team or individual.

If the vision is diluted due to lack of control afforded by AI tools, then the tools won’t be used.

Many times in Hollywood have we seen directors spend unjustifiable amounts of money in the pursuit of creative control.

Hand camera tracking a dinosaur in Jurassic Park, developing a novel diffraction algorithm for THE ABYSS, hand-drawing 3-Dimensional computer animations for 2001, creating an entire scale model practically for a single fight scene in LOTR.

AI allows you to get anything. The best movies are a direct reflection of a particular vision. AI can’t provide this and I see no way to solve it.

A natural response is - well directors already outsource some creative control to VFX artists so why not to a machine instead.

Because an artist can control everything. Even if the artist is prompting a model, at the end of the day an artist can drill right down to the tooling itself (photoshop for example) and exactly achieve the vision.

I don’t see AI achieving this granularity while maintaining its utility. It’s a sliding scale of trading utility as a time saving device for control.

If you lean too far to the control side, well you might as well fire up photoshop. If you lean too much to the utility side, you sacrifice creative control.

When looked at under this lens the utility of AI generation is actually limited as it solves a non existent problem. One can think of it as an additional piece of tooling for use only as a generational tool where there is less need for control, such as for background characters.

The team at Red Barrels, for example, train a local model on their own artwork to automatically generate variant textures for map generation. Things such as this. No need to be doom and gloom about this stuff.

If you watch a little further until about 20 minutes what follows is an explanation of what the primaries represent (described by you as “colorspace coordinates”) along with a reasonable simplification of what a transfer function is, describing it as part of the colorspace. I believe that’s reasonable? He merely explains Rec. 2100 as if using the PQ transfer function is innate. Definitely all seems appropriate and well presented for the target audience.

I’ve seen skeuomorphic designs done with vector art, surely this can’t be the only/real reason.

Just because I’m curious, why the issue with reading GPL code? My understanding is that you would have to essentially directly copy and paste the code for the GPL license to apply to it.

Then I’d say just pick the one you are most familiar with

This is a fantastic tool and I recommend it! I use it every day to recursively solve bottlenecks in our code base.

It's genuinely not that bad

Are you talking heavily templated C++ code as well? I’ve got my suspicions about how much this affects things…

Yea, our software stack pulls many dependencies (our software probably totals over 200k loc). We depend on Qt, OpenCASCADE, and a few other heavy C++ Libraries. Stepping over a single line of code in GDB using the TUI can take 3-5 seconds in the worst case. I’ve been meaning to investigate or profile it further when I get the time, but it functionally means I avoid using the debugger except as a “last resort”, or only using it to catch segfaults or unhandled exceptions.

It’s very odd. It’s like it doesn’t cache something and ends up doing some strange expensive symbol search every time it hits a breakpoint or something.

Curious if anyone has a good solution to this also

I can reproduce. Firefox 127.0 under wayland, arch linux

Yours actually looks useful for my use case (remote debugging wrappers)

The schema of the linked post doesn't look useful to me at all haha

As someone who works with QML daily, I had the same question. The work is already done. Why write a common UI backend in swift when you can have the whole thing common using QML/Qt.

It’s the best way to write native Multiplatform apps at the moment. It just is.

I fail to see the purpose of this.

Call me harsh, but I think this is one of those things that is fun to create but not very useful. Possibly that's the reason it was made.

The reasoning has everything to do with confusion. This will be a de-facto leaky abstraction of an experience. Many windows programs will not work and require debugging. It isn't clear to the user that this is actually Ubuntu, so the system ultimately becomes less usable when something (inevitably) goes wrong as you are now dealing with nuances of two different systems at once.

I can only see this being useful in situations where a user has learned the 'bare minimum' of windows functionality and needs to be presented with a similar UI ('fooled') to be able to function in the OS at a basic level.

EDIT: And they offer a paid version that 500s? This is starting to read like very suspicious software...