The right response then perhaps would be to correctly assign AI the authorship it deserves instead of the human "operator/patron" who did not understand what the AI wrought, but merely acted as benefactor to provide the token fee.
A paper should stand and fall on its merits; does it build constructively on our collective understanding? Does it advance the state of the art in its field? Does it shed new light on a prior mystery?
So it seems there ought to be a path whereby a quality non-human paper ought to be considered for submission, provided it is adequately and correctly attributed.
My first startup job after college I was astonished to find that one of our most productive engineers was a deaf furry who used Windows Notepad as his dev environment. His code always compiled first time and was nearly always right. It really was something to behold.
Not that many years ago (maybe 2012-2014), we were taught working with R using only the base-R. Its' native script editor was a Windows Notepad or something equivalent. We used this for years.. Professors as well. For some reason we didn't know about RStudio or any other fancy IDE.
TBF using notepad + terminal is a great way to learn how a language or stack works. It's possible for pretty much everything, and once you learn how your ide (or LLM) is putting things together it makes it so much easier to fix when things go wrong
This must depend on language. I think that at least for Python, JS/TS, Go, C, Fortran there isn’t much difference in setup with notepad+terminal (or sublime+terminal for myself) relative to whatever the kids are using these days. Other than syntax highlighting and LSP, obviously, but I’m not sure those have much to do with learning how the language or stack work. Could you explain what you mean if I’m misunderstanding something?
The last thing my father said to me before he passed was to keep people looking forward to the future.
It's easy to romanticize the past and it can seem intellectually sophisticated to despair about the future, when in fact the overwhelming evidence is that things have gotten much much better for nearly everyone on just about any objective axis you can pick.
The fundamentals behind the tech might have gotten better but the implementations of it have also gotten worse in many significant ways for normal users.
We came up with the idea of having a place where nerds could come together to hang out and learn from each other and we decided to call the concept "Hacker Dojo". I had a sign laser engraved in 2002 at a state fair to memorialize the idea but we didn't actually get to open a Hacker Dojo until 2009.
There's a conference room in it called Kaminsky.
Dan was not a very good roommate but man, his brain worked in weird and wonderful ways, and it was inspiring how he could just rabbit-hole on stuff other people didn't find interesting until he MADE it interesting and found things nobody else had.
I wasn't sure how specific to be in my comment, but I'm glad the people who knew him know who it is. Speaks a lot of the man. I'm also 100% ready to believe he was not a good roommate by the condition of his car ;)
Interestingly enough, strong corporate governance and independent directors do not produce better returns. This is a central point in Eric Rees's book Incorruptible.
I'll need to read that, but if my anecdotal experience is any indication, there aren't that many "independent" boards of directors. Ultimately you do find some sort of connection between board members and the c-suite of many companies. In some cases (Meta) the CEO is the chairman. Marc Andreesen is also on Meta's board despite being an early investor and mentor to Zuckerberg. Seems like an explicit conflict of interest, no?
A friend of mine got phished and I did a teardown of the infrastructure components that were used to execute the attack, that executes a Browser-In-The-Middle attack with an encrypted websocket. I've already reached out to the involved infrastructure providers, but haven't yet heard back from all of them yet.
On licenses, what's your recommendation for best practice for an LLM co-authored project? Apache 2.0 or MIT seemed the best fit.
UPDATE: On the play button, I found your issue; I had tested on Chrome desktop and it worked fine, but I'm guessing you had Silent Mode enabled and I hadn't set the audio session to 'playback' from ambient. (You would have heard the sweep if you turned off Silent Mode.) I've now set playback mode and I have verified it now plays back just fine even in Silent Mode. You can verify it on cyrinx.org. Thank you for the bug report!
They did increase the base Ram for mac configurations in late 2024 from 8GB to 16GB.
While it wasn't a strict price decrease it was an improvement to the base model. The 24GB m3 air I bought a few months earlier would've been cheaper due to that if I held off for a few more months. Now w/ the price hikes the price I paid is now cheaper than buying a 24GB m5 air.
While these new Mac prices are probably here to stay, the upside is that once the AI market saturates and RAM prices fall, future Macs will likely get a significant memory boost at all price tiers.
A base-config 2028 MBP could be running local LLMs at a level unthinkable today.
Sure, quite often. They usually have a price target in mind, but their costs and margins mean they can't always hit it.
What's rare is that this is a price adjustment on existing shipping models, without a corresponding new model. I remember them doing price drops with a few Intel Macs in 2023, but otherwise the only example that comes to mind is the original iPhone.
Yeah, they did it quite a bit in the 20-teens. Wasn't uncommon to see an event where they finished announcing an upgraded model of something, then had a slide where the current price fell away to reveal one $100-$150 lower.
A paper should stand and fall on its merits; does it build constructively on our collective understanding? Does it advance the state of the art in its field? Does it shed new light on a prior mystery?
So it seems there ought to be a path whereby a quality non-human paper ought to be considered for submission, provided it is adequately and correctly attributed.
reply