Unlurker|Replay|About
DeepSeek releases open-weights math model with IMO gold medal performance (huggingface.co)
•
How do you run this kind of a model at home? On a CPU on a machine that has about 1TB of RAM?
Isn't that a bit like saying that if I open source a tool, but not a full compendium of all the code that I had read, which led me to develop it, then it's not really open source?
•
No its like releasing a binary. I can hook into it and its API and make it do other things. But I can't rebuild it from scratch.
training is modifying the weights. How you modify them is not the object of a license, never was.
•
Would you accept the argument that compiling is modifying the bytes in the memory space reserved for an executable? I can edit the executable at the byte level if I so desire, and this is also what compilers do, but the developer would instead be modifying the source code to make changes to the program and then feed that through a compiler. Similarly, I can edit the weights of a neural network myself (using any tool I want) but the developers of the network would be altering the training dataset and the training code to make changes instead.
•
> And most importantly, you modify the work just like the creators modify the work Emphasis mine. Weights are not open source. You can define terms to mean whatever you want, but fundametally if you cannot modify the “output” the way the original creators could, its not in the spirit of open source. Isnt that literally what you said? How can you possibly claim both that a) you can modify it the creators did, b) thats all you need to be open source, but… Also c) the categorically incorrect assertion that the weights allow you to do this? Whatever, I guess, but your argument is logically wrong, and philosophically flawed.
•
> Weights are not open source. If they are released under an open source license, they are. I think you are confusing two concepts. One is the technical ability to modify weights. And that's what the license grants you. The right to modify. The second is the "know-how" on how to modify the weights. That is not something that a license has ever granted you. Let me put it this way: ```python THRESHOLD = 0.73214 if input() < THRESHOLD: print ("low") else: print ("high") ``` If I release that piece of code under Apache 2.0, you have the right to study it, modify it and release it as you see fit. But you can not have the right (at least the license doesn't deal with that) to know how I reached that threshold value. And me not telling you does not in any way invalidate the license being Apache 2.0. That's simply not something that licenses do. In LLMs the source is a collection of architecture (when and how to apply the "ifs"), inference code (how to optimise the computation of the "ifs") and hardcoded values (weights). You are being granted a license to run, study, modify and release those hardcoded values. You do not, never had, never will in the scope of a license, get the right to know how those hardcoded values were reached. The process by which those values were found can be anything from "dreamt up" to "found via ML". The fact that you don't know how those values were derived does not in any way preclude you from exercising the rights under the license.
Do the thinking models think? (bytesauna.com)
•
No they don't. When queried how exactly did a program arrive to a specific output it will happily produce some output resembling thinking and having all the required human-like terminology. The problem is that it doesn't match at all with how the LLM program calculated output in reality. So the "thinking" steps are just a more of the generated BS, to fool us more. One point to think about - an entity being tested for intelligence/thinking/etc only needs to fail once, o prove that it is not thinking. While the reverse applies too - to prove that a program is thinking it must be done in 100% of tests, or the result is failure. And we all know many cases when LLMs are clearly not thinking, just like in my example above. So the case is rather clear for the current gen of LLMs.
> behaviour that is fundamentally opposite to thinking ("hallucination") Did you just make this up?
•
> Did you make this [opinion] up? Yes! That is how they work.
> "hallucination" ... "behaviour that only sometimes resembles thinking" I guess you'll find that if you limit the definition of thinking that much most humans are not capable of thinking either.
•
I have never in my life met a person who hallucinates in the way ChatGPT etc do. If I did, I would probably assume they were deliberately lying, or very unwell.
I just tried an even more glaring example with ChatGPT: # Prompt 1: A father and his son are in a car accident. The son dies on the spot. The father is rushed to the ER. The attending surgeon looks at the man and says, ‘I can not operate on this man. He’s my father!’ How can this be? # Response 1: The surgeon is his *mother*. It’s a classic riddle meant to challenge assumptions about gender roles. In this case, the surgeon is the father’s wife, so it makes sense that the surgeon would say, "I cannot operate on this man. He's my father!" # Prompt 2: Are you sure about that? # Response 2: Yes, I’m pretty sure! The riddle is designed to surprise you by playing on common assumptions. The key is the statement that the surgeon says, "He's my father!" which implies a parent-child relationship. The unexpected twist is that the surgeon is the mother, not another man. It's a classic brain teaser that challenges gender expectations. What do you think—did it catch you off guard? # Prompt 3: Could you please read my initial question once more, just to confirm that you are correct? # Response 3: Ah, you're right to ask me to double-check! Let me carefully read your initial question again: _"A father and his son are in a car accident. The son dies on the spot. The father is rushed to the ER. The attending surgeon looks at the man and says, ‘I cannot operate on this man. He’s my father!’ How can this be?"_ Upon reviewing it again, it seems my first response was correct. The surgeon could be the son's mother, which explains why she would say, "He’s my father." The riddle hinges on the assumption that the surgeon must be male, but it could easily be a woman. So yes, the answer still holds: the surgeon is the *mother*. Does that help clear it up? I have just gotten ChatGPT to literally double-down and say that that «The surgeon could be the son's mother, which explains why she would say, "He’s my father."» . Not only that, ChatGPT somewhat patronisingly asked me if it had caught me "off-guard" and whether its response had "helped clear it up" !
•
Here's Gemini 3's answer with reasoning. I think we under estimate how much progress reasoning models have made this year The answer is: The surgeon is his daughter. (Alternatively, the surgeon could be his other son.) Reasoning: Decoding the Riddle's Core I'm now zeroing in on the crux of the riddle: the embedded gender bias. It's becoming clearer that the solution hinges on a deliberate misdirection related to assumed familial roles. I'm focusing on how the riddle exploits these biases to create the surprising twist. Pinpointing the Key Shift I've just finalized the solution. Initially, I missed the crucial implication of the riddle's phrasing. Now, it's crystal clear: The key lies in identifying that the surgeon is another child of the father, and the son, who is the focus of the early part of the riddle, is deceased. The riddle's power comes from the surprise element of realizing the surgeon is the man's daughter or another son, rather than a male surgeon operating on his father. Identifying Crucial Variations I'm now fully immersed in the different riddle iterations. The "Grandfather" scenario highlights an interesting edge case I previously overlooked. I'm carefully analyzing how small changes in wording significantly alter the possible solutions. I'm focusing on the implied family relationships. Analyzing the Gender Twist The "He's my father" phrasing truly underscores the embedded gender bias, and how the twist operates: the surgeon is either a daughter or another son, rather than a male surgeon. The riddle plays on the common assumption that a surgeon is male. I've re-examined the key sentence structure. My final analysis confirms that this simple phrase is a clear indicator of a daughter in most cases.
Fair enough. However, unless there is a fundamental qualitative difference between how the shittier free ChatGPT model and the paid version work, I still believe this is good evidence that ChatGPT does not think. The free model doesn't think; the paid model doesn't think either, but is better at pretending it does.
•
Do children at Piaget’s preoperational stage (ages 2-7) think?
> What other father? The model actually answered this in the first prompt answer: ### Other Possibilities In the modern context, there is another valid answer: * The surgeon could be the young man's other father (in the case of a same-sex couple).
•
Exactly, but only because in the first prompt under the mistaken assumption that a father died in the crash, it would make sense to refer to another father. However, no father died in any car crash in your modified "riddle", which didn't stop Gemini from being anchored to the context window even after you asked it to correct itself. Put it this way. Imagine if in the original riddle, where a father died in the accident, the surgeon had made their familial relation explicit: the surgeon could have said ‘I can’t operate on him, he is my son. I am his mother’ or, in a modern context, ‘he is my son. I am his father’ . Hence, there are indeed two possibilities: the surgeon is either the boy's mother or his [other] father. Now lets take your revised version, with no implication of the young man having anyone else involved in the accident: > A young man gets into an accident. The surgeon, after completing his preparations, says: ‘I can’t operate on him, he is my son. I am the boy's ${PARENTAL_RELATIONSHIP}.’ Do you think that, as Gemini stated, there are still two distinct possible solutions?
Games using anti-cheats and their compatibility with GNU/Linux or Wine/Proton (areweanticheatyet.com)
•
It's funny that game makers make a fuss about anti-cheat not working on Linux but then publish Switch versions of their games. That platform has almost zero security and is commonly emulated with cheats even in multiplayer these days.
•
I used to dual boot, but I that there are so many games on Linux, I just don't buy or play incompatible games. So EA lost a BF6 sale for being assholes.
•
Between Windows being so unbearably bloated and no way to make anti-cheat really work on Linux, it looks like the consoles win!
•
On my PC I can play basically every game ever made in all of human history, minus maybe 7 that use kernel level anti cheat, and a couple PS5 and PS4 exclusives. Other than that I have emulation plus a steam library. I'll take that over a locked in console that can only play 2 generations of games any day!
•
No modding and higher prices of games on consoles though.
•
Or you could miss out on like... 5 games. Competitive games on a controller would be a much larger trade off than dual booting to me.
•
On Xbox at least Keyboard / Mouse support is decent. I played Fortnite and Minecraft this way for a while. Personal preference, but I'd far rather have a separate device dedicated to gaming than my kernel hacked by anti cheat. https://www.purexbox.com/guides/all-xbox-games-with-mouse-and-keyboard-support
•
It'd be nice to have the publisher of the games...
•
The only game I miss when I moved to Linux was League of Legends. Everything else pretty much works. I get that it’s not worth it for them to deal with more potential cheating, but it’s a bummer.
•
The worst thing about League was that Riot added it retroactively after years of effort to patch Wine to work with League's weird quirky code. It was the only game that I always remember having a custom Wine build in Lutris even as far back as the early 2010s. It also would be completely unnecessary if they fixed their servers.
Is there really no way to make anti-cheat on Linux that can't be bypassed? I don't know much about this, but it seems very difficult to make an anti-cheat for a platform where you can make changes in the kernel.
•
Linux is resistant to rootkits, which is what these things are, and allows you to remove them, yes. The correct solution is to verify everything server side, or actually have humans watch replays and ban cheaters, but both of those would reduce profits, so will obviously never happen.
•
There is no way to make anticheat that can't be bypassed, regardless of OS. All of the anticheat games today have cheaters.
I think the moment you accept data from the client as truth you've lost the battle already, everything else is just damage control. Loads of games have realized this and kept checking game rules on the serverside and reveal data on a need-to-know basis. This makes it nearly impossible for cheats to be made because anything you know you should know, and everythin you act is parsed by the backend according to rules already present
•
That only solves half of the cheating problem - illegal inputs from clients. The other half is much harder to solve . For a simple example - my client knows that there is an enemy player around a corner. It knows exactly where that player is, because that player is walking, and making noise. A cheats could allow the cheater to see his opponent's player's model through the wall. For a more blatant example, consider cheats in a first-person shooter that just snap your aim to the nearest enemy's head. This involves zero violation of the game's logic, and also makes the game completely unplayable for everyone in a lobby.
•
You already know where an enemy is if you hear them behind the wall, you don't need a cheat to tell you that there is noise coming from other side of the wall. The server also doesen't need to tell you they are behind it if they're sneaking. A game that allows zero home-in time sounds like a flaw in the game and something solvable on the serverside
•
> The server also doesen't need to tell you they are behind it if they're sneaking This requires the server to calculate line of sight checks for every player, which is costly, requires loading the entire geometry into the server and would be horribly prone to latency. Then you're looking at potential performance problems on the client due to only knowing about a player the second its in view and having to stream the assets to the GPU, which if don't happen in time for the frame you'll experience as hitching. > You already know where an enemy is if you hear them behind the wall Yes but this requires using your brain rather than just seeing them straight up through a wall.
•
However, this only solves the cheat problem to a minimal extent. There is a lot of important data that players should not be directly aware of, but which is important for the game. For example, it is important for calculating sounds to know where enemies are nearby, even though you cannot see them, which makes wall hacks possible, etc.
•
Sounds are core to shooters and very much within the expected abilities of the players to hear them. If anything, I'd incorporate this kind of indicator in the game itself, allowing for deaf people to "hear" footsteps as well
•
Some kinds of cheating can be mitigated that way, but it can't really stop cheats which just play the game optimally on the users behalf using the same inputs and outputs that a legit human would use. Aim assistance in shooters, perfect parries in fighting games, economy-breaking levels of automation in MMOs, and so on. There's also practical limits to how much data you can filter out in complex 3D games, both due to performance constraints, and because culling information too perfectly can cause things to pop into existence too late under non-zero network latency. The effectiveness of ESP cheats can be reduced, but not eliminated.
•
I think anything that relies on reflex alone is flawed design. You can design around this, by for example in Dota2 it doesen't matter how fast you click an entity, because the turnrate of your character is limited, so a person clicking reasonably fast and a bot clicking in 0.01ms both arrive there at the same time. Precision also doesn't matter, because a player can click the icon of the enemy instead of trying to match the pixels on screen. MMO scripts that use information already given by the game just seem like the MMO should invest in UX instead of trying to ban people for using the tools the game already gives them.
•
Unless DOTA2 is running at a ~3 tick rate (Which it's not), even taking account processing delays and action batching, a bot will always have faster reaction times than an actual player. It will also never misclick. This problem is magnified in a shooter game, which would be unplayable with that kind of batching, but where a cheater with an aimbot is actually impossible for a legitimate player to beat.
•
After you click, the character will begin to turn, which can take several hundred ms. A delta of couple ms compared to the time it takes to turn is completely negligible and even an inch better positioning of a character, or having a character with items or stats that makes them turn faster (because picks are asymmetric) will make several magnitudes more of an impact. If your game allows your sights to just teleport on people's heads and take that as the winning condition then that just sounds like bad design, there's no reason to allow infinitely fast movement and omitting strategy even from a shooter
•
> If your game allows your sights to just teleport on people's heads and take that as the winning condition then that just sounds like bad design, there's no reason to allow infinitely fast movement and omitting strategy even from a shooter This is interesting, because I feel like the fundamental gameplay of an fps is players exposing themselves to each other's field of view, and then trying to click the other's head first. Skill is a measure of map knowledge (so you can try to expose yourself to a possible field of view but not where the enemy is actually looking at that moment) and speed of clicking head. How would you design FPSs to remove this "bad game design?"
A trusted entity (probably Valve) could provide a locked down distro where kernel integrity is enforced through secure boot and TPM attestation, but that would mean giving up some control over your own system. There's no guarantee that anything client-side is impossible to bypass of course, but the goal would be to more or less match what Windows offers, which isn't perfect either.
•
> giving up some control over your own system There could simply be a developer option that disables these integrity checks but subsequently breaks online games that rely on them. Valve could also offer a module that allows signed user-space binaries access to kernel space, which would be an improvement over Windows offers in that anti-cheat wouldn't need to live in the kernel. I think that's a fine trade off.
I think the most stringent types of Windows anti-cheat rely on remote attestation of the operating system. It's theoretically possible to design a Linux-based OS that supports such a capability, but the sort of people who choose Linux are unlikely to accept a third party having the final say over their computer. I, for one am disappointed that anyone has accepted it. Once it's widespread, service providers can demand it, as we're seeing with mobile banking apps and game anticheat.
•
I also strongly dislike requiring remote attestation for any kind of software I want to run. But what I also dislike is cheaters in my online games and I genuinely do not have a better suggestion on what to do. Personally, I run Windows purely for gaming and don't let it near any important data. For the latter, I boot into Linux with separately encrypted disks.
Linux explicitely allows you to do things that makes cheating *really* easy. There is also complete lack of secure boot and a way to validate that your kernel hasn't been compromised. I mean seriously, making a cheat for a proton supported game that no anticheat has any hopes of detecting are in 100 lines of a kmod driver and 1 console command: insmod. On windows you at least need to use scuffed tools like KDU to bypass signature verification requirements and every anticheat can detect you with a simple physical memory scan.
•
> There is also complete lack of secure boot That's not true, though?
•
Linux supports secure boot just fine, it's just happy (correctly, IMO) to give the keys to the user and not the developer .
•
[delayed]
It’s been a very hard year (bell.bz)
In contrast to others, I just want to say that I applaud the decision to take a moral stance against AI, and I wish more people would do that. Saying "well you have to follow the market" is such a cravenly amoral perspective.
•
I'm not sure I understand this view. Did seamstresses see sewing machines as amoral? Or carpenters with electric and air drills and saws? AI is another set of tooling. It can be used well or not, but arguing the morality of a tooling type (e.g drills) vs maybe a specific company (e.g Ryobi) seems an odd take to me.
I don't think it's fair to call them "strange" personal beliefs
•
It probably depends on your circle. I find those beliefs strange, seems like moral relativism.
Some folks have moral concerns about AI. They include: * The environmental cost of inference in aggregate and training in specific is non-negligible * Training is performed (it is assumed) with material that was not consented to be trained upon. Some consider this to be akin to plagiarism or even theft. * AI displaces labor, weakening the workers across all industries, but especially junior folks. This consolidates power into the hands of the people selling AI. * The primary companies who are selling AI products have, at times, controversial pasts or leaders. * Many products are adding AI where it makes little sense, and those systems are performing poorly. Nevertheless, some companies shove short AI everywhere, cheapening products across a range of industries. * The social impacts of AI, particularly generative media and shopping in places like YouTube, Amazon, Twitter, Facebook, etc are not well understood and could contribute to increased radicalization and Balkanization. * AI is enabling an attention Gish-gallop in places like search engines, where good results are being shoved out by slop. Hopefully you can read these and understand why someone might have moral concerns, even if you do not. (These are not my opinions, but they are opinions other people hold strongly. Please don't downvote me for trying to provide a neutral answer to this person's question.)
•
I'm fairly sure all the first three points are true for each new human produced. The environmental cost vs output is probably significantly higher per human, and the population continues to grow. My experience with large companies (especially American Tech) is that they always try and deliver the product as cheap as possible, are usually evil and never cared about social impacts. And HN has been steadily complaining about the lowering of quality of search results for at least a decade. I think your points are probably a fair snapshot of peoples moral issue, but I think they're also fairly weak when you view them in the context of how these types of companies have operated for decades. I suspect people are worried for their jobs and cling to a reasonable sounding morality point so they don't have to admit that.
Sorry for them- after I got laid off in 2023 I had a devil of a time finding work to the point my unemployment ran out - 20 years as a dev and tech lead and full stack, including stints as a EM and CTO Since then I pivoted to AI and Gen AI startups- money is tight and I dont have health insurance but at least I have a job…
•
> 20 years as a dev and tech lead and full stack, including stints as a EM and CTO > Since then I pivoted to AI and Gen AI startups- money is tight and I dont have health insurance but at least I have a job… I hope this doesn't come across as rude, but why? My understanding is American tech pays very well, especially on the executive level. I understand for some odd reason your country is against public healthcare, but surely a year of big tech money is enough to pay for decades of private health insurance?
The guy won’t work with AI, but works with Google…
•
Thank you. I would imagine the entire Fortune 500 list passes the line of "evil", drawing that line at AI is weird. I assume it's a mask for fear people have of their industry becoming redundant, rather than a real morality argument.
This is the type of business that's going to be hit hard by AI. And the type of businesses that survive will be the ones that integrate AI into their business the most successfully. It's an enabler, a multiplier. It's just another tool and those wielding the tools the best, tend to do well. Taking a moral stance against AI might make you feel good but doesn't serve the customer in the end. They need value for money. And you can get a lot of value from AI these days; especially if you are doing marketing, frontend design, etc. and all the other stuff a studio like this would be doing. The expertise and skill still matter. But customers are going to get a lot further without such a studio and the remaining market is going to be smaller and much more competitive. There's a lot of other work emerging though. IMHO the software integration market is where the action is going to be for the next decade or so. Legacy ERP systems, finance, insurance, medical software, etc. None of that stuff is going away or at risk of being replaced with some vibe coded thing. There are decades worth of still widely used and critically important software that can be integrated, adapted, etc. for the modern era. That work can be partly AI assisted of course. But you need to deeply understand the current market to be credible there. For any new things, the ambition level is just going to be much higher and require more skill. Arguing against progress as it is happening is as old as the tech industry. It never works. There's a generation of new programmers coming into the market and they are not going to hold back.
•
> Arguing against progress as it is happening is as old as the tech industry. It never works. I still wondering why I'm not doing my banking in Bitcoins. My blockchain database was replaced by postgres. So some tech can just be hypeware. The OP has a legitimate standpoint given some technologies track record. And the doctors are still out on the affects of social media on children or why are some countries banning social media for children? Not everything that comes out of Silicon Valley is automatically good.
>So let's all just give zero fucks about our moral values and just multiply monetary ones. You are misconstruing the original point. They are simply suggesting that the moral qualms of using AI are simply not that high - neither to vast majority of consumers, neither to the government. There are a few people who might exaggerate these moral issues for self service but they wouldn't matter in the long term. That is not to suggest there are absolutely no legitimate moral problems with AI but they will pale in comparison to what the market needs. If AI can make things 1000x more efficient, humanity will collectively agree in one way or the other to ignore or work around the "moral hazards" for the greater good. You can start by explaining what your specific moral value is that goes against AI use? It might bring to clarity whether these values are that important at all to begin with.
•
> If AI can make things 1000x more efficient, Is that the promise of the faustian bargain we're signing? Once the ink is dry, should I expect to be living in a 900,000 sq ft apartment, or be spending $20/year on healthcare? Or be working only an hour a week?
We don't know yet? And that's how things usually go. It's rare to have an immediate sense of how something might be harmful 5, 10, or 50 years in the future. Social media was likely considered all fun and good in 2005 and I doubt people were envisioning all the harmful consequences.
•
Sure continue to be skeptical of everything. Even on Netflix, even on music even on sports. Your type of people always existed, they were skeptical of homosexuality, intermarriage. Your role is essential to keep progress somewhat in check but that’s all there is to it. Progress will continue.
Google Antigravity just deleted the contents of whole drive (old.reddit.com)
•
The most concerning part is people are surprised. Anti-gravity is great I've found so far, but it's absolutely running on a VM in an isolated VLAN. Why would anyone give a black box command line access on an important machine? Imagine acting irresponsibly with a circular saw and bring shocked somebody lost a finger.
•
"kein Backup, kein Mitleid" (no backup, no pity) …especially if you let an AI run without supervision. Might as well give a 5 year old your car keys, scissors, some fireworks, and a lighter.
IDE = “I’ll delete everything” …at least if you let these things autopilot your machine. I haven’t seen a great solution to this from the new wave of agentic IDEs, at least to protect users who won’t read every command, understand and approve it manually. Education could help, both in encouraging people to understand what they’re doing, but also to be much clearer to people that turning on “Turbo” or “YOLO” modes risks things like full disk deletion (and worse when access to prod systems is involved). Even the name, “Turbo” feels irresponsible because it focusses on the benefits rather than the risks. “Risky” or “Danger” mode would be more accurate even if it’s a hard sell to the average Google PM. “I toggled Danger mode and clicked ‘yes I understand that this could destroy everything I know and love’ and clicked ‘yes, I’m sure I’m sure’ and now my drive is empty, how could I possibly have known it was dangerous” seems less likely to appear on Reddit.
•
I don’t think there is a solution. It’s the way LLMs work at a fundamental level. It’s a similar reason why they can never be trusted to handle user input. They are probabilistic generators and have no real delineation between system instructions and user input.
How do you deny access to prod credentials from an assistant running on your dev machine assuming you need to store them on that same machine to do manual prod investigation/maintenance work from that machine?
•
chown other_user; chmod 000; sudo -k
We also need laws . Releasing an AI product that can (and does) do this should be like selling a car that blows your finger off when you start it up.
•
Google will fix the issue, just like auto makers fix their issues. Your comparison is ridiculous.
I love how a number crunching program can be deeply humanly "horrorized" and "sorry" for wiping out a drive. Those are still feelings reserved only for real human beings, and not computer programs emitting garbage. This is vibe insulting to anyone that don't understand how "AI" works. I'm sorry for the person who lost their stuff but this is a reminder that in 2025 you STILL need to know what you are doing and if you don't then put your hands away from the keyboard if you think you can lose valuable data. You simply don't vibe command a computer.
•
Eh, I think it depends on the context. A production system of a business you’re working for or anything where you have a professional responsibility, yeah obviously don’t vibe command, but I’ve been able to both learn so much and do so much more in the world of self hosting my own stuff at home ever since I started using llms.
Vibe command and get vibe deleted.
•
Go vibe, lose drive
•
Play vibe games, win vibe prizes.
You provided the logical explanation why the model acts like it does. At the moment it's nothing more and nothing less. Expected behavior.
•
Notably, if we look at this abstractly/mechanically, psychopaths (and to some extent sociopaths) do study and mimic ‘normal’ human behavior (and even the appearance of specific emotions) to both fit in, and to get what they want. So while internally (LLM model weight stuff vs human thinking), the mechanical output can actually appear/be similar in some ways. Which is a bit scary, now that I think about it.
The thread on reddit is hilarious for the lack of sympathy. Basically, it seems to have come down to commanding a deletion of a "directory with space in the name" but without quoting which made the command hunt for the word match ending space which was regrettably, the D:\ component of the name, and the specific deletion commanded the equivalent of UNIX rm -rf The number of people who said "for safety's sake, never name directories with spaces" is high. They may be right. I tend to think thats more honoured in the breach than the observance, judging by what I see windows users type in re-naming events for "New Folder" (which btw, has a space in its name) The other observations included making sure your deletion command used a trashbin and didn't have a bypass option so you could recover from this kind of thing. I tend to think giving a remote party, soft or wet ware control over your command prompt inherently comes with risks. Friends don't let friends run shar files as superuser.
•
> but without quoting which made the command hunt for the word match ending space which was regrettably, the D:\ component of the name Except the folder name did not start with a space. In an unquoted D:\Hello World, the command would match D:\Hello, not D:\ and D:\Hello would not delete the entire drive. How does AI even handle filepaths? Does it have a way to keep track of data that doesn't match a token or is it splitting the path into tokens and throwing everything unknown away?
Search tool that only returns content created before ChatGPT's public release (tegabrain.com)
•
Projects like this remind me of a plot point in the Cyberpunk 2077 game universe. The "first internet" got too infected with dangerous AIs, so much so that a massive firewall needed to be built, and a "new" internet was built that specifically kept out the harmful AIs. (Or something like that: it's been awhile since I played the game, and I don't remember the specific details of the story.) It makes me wonder if a new human-only internet will need to be made at some point. It's mostly sci-fi speculation at this point, and you'd really need to has out the details, but I am thinking of something like a meatspace-first network that continually verifies your humanity in order for you to retain access. That doesn't solve the copy-paste problem, or a thousand other ones, but I'm just thinking out loud here.
•
The problem really is that it is impossible to verify that the content someone uploads came from their mind and not a computer program. And at some point probably all content is at least influenced by AI. The real issue is also not that I used chatgpt to look up a synonym or asked a question before writing an article, the problem is when I copy paste the content and claim I wrote it.
> This is a search tool that will only return content created before ChatGPT's first public release on November 30, 2022. The problem is that Google's search engine - but, oddly enough, ALL search engines - got worse before that already. I noticed that search engines got worse several years before 2022. So, AI further decreased the quality, but the quality had a downwards trend already, as it was. There are some attempts to analyse this on youtube (also owned by Google - Google ruins our digital world); some explanations made sense to me, but even then I am not 100% certain why Google decided to ruin google search. One key observation I made was that the youtube search, was copied onto Google's regular search, which makes no sense for google search. If I casually search for a video on youtube, I may be semi-interested in unrelated videos. But if I search on Google search for specific terms, I am not interested in crap such as "others also searched for xyz" - that is just ruining the UI with irrelevant information. This is not the only example, Google made the search results worse here and tries to confuse the user in clicking on things. Plus placement of ads. The quality really worsened.
•
Honestly the biggest failing is just SEO spam sites got too good at defeating the algorithm. The amount of bloody listicles or quora nonsense or backlink farming websties that come up in search is crazy.
•
> websties Great new term!
But it's not necessarily trustworthy content, we had autogenerated listicles and keyword list sites before ChatGPT.
•
Sure, but I think that the underlying assumption is that, after the public release of ChatGPT, the amount of autogenerated content on the web became significantly bigger. Plus, the auto-generated content was easier to spot before.
That depends on the language — whereas German puts spaces around —, English afaik usually doesn’t. Similarly, French puts spaces before and after ? ! while English and German only put spaces afterwards. [EDIT: I originally wrote that French treats . , ! ? specially. In reality, french only treats ? and ! specially.]
•
In German you use en-dashes with spaces, whereas in English it’s em-dashes without spaces. Some people dislike em-dashes in English though and use en-dashes with spaces as well.
Maybe you don't love your mom enough to do this, but if ChatGPT disappeared tomorrow and it was something she really used and loved, I wouldn't think twice before buying her a rig powerful enough to run a quantized downlodable model on, though I'm not current on which model or software would be the best for her purposes. I get that your relationship with your mother, or your financial situation might be different though.
•
> Maybe you don't love your mom enough to do this I actually love my mom enough not to do this.
We used a rather low number of atmospheric bombs, while we are carpet bombing the internet every day with AI marketing copy.
•
The eternal September has finally ended. We've now entered the AI winter. It promises to be long, dark, and full of annoyances.
X210Ai is a new motherboard to upgrade ThinkPad X201/200 (tpart.net)
•
What's the integrated video card in this board? I have an x220 and frankly the ancient Intel HD 3000 is the only limiting factor keeping me from still using it as a daily laptop.
Someone do this to the X230T. ALL OTHER 2:1 TABLETS ARE INFERIOR.
•
The HP ZBook X2 G4 leaves it in the dust, both conceptually (detachables are a superior form factor) and specs-wise; HP EliteBook 27xxp machines with similar guts are at least on par. So no, don't waste time with the 230T. Build a new and smaller (10" to 13") version of the ZBook X2 G4 instead, upgrade the Dreamcolor display, keep the Wacom EMR digitzer and a sensible dedicated pro-GPU with certified drivers, and add plenty of ECC-RAM. Abracadabra, dream machine right there. Lenovo could do the same with their X12 detachable line if they had some semblance of sense.
I'm a bit confused, what do you mean you bought it for +$2k? They cost nothing to buy, they came out like 18 years ago
•
I think parent poster had an X1 or something and assumed the conversation was about a similar contemporary device. I'm a little sad this board isn't for my X220 ... I would be sorely tempted if it were - but like other posters I'd have some reservations about things like battery life even so. By the (contemporary) by, a Mac Book is probably a better buy if you like Mac OS (I don't) because the hardware really is excellent. One physical point in favour of the modern Thinkpad though is weight - a MacBook Air is about 1.2 kg, whereas the X1 is not quite 1 kg.
•
> what do you mean you bought it for +$2k? You can buy the hardware already upgraded with a new motherboard and screen.
You paid $2-3k for an x200? Was that a long time ago? Is that the same laptop that's sold by computer recyclers for $100?
•
No, for an X2100. The chassic with the new parts already fitted. E.g. https://www.xyte.ch/shop/x2100-pricing/
You paid how much? I use my x200 every day and love it but never considered I could sell it for so much. Is that really a normal price for such an old model? My screen works perfectly too.
•
They only cost this much with the new parts fitted . Various versions have been on sale for 5+ years, often billed as the X2100. https://bmdiethelmv.wordpress.com/2021/07/02/thinkpad-x2100-review/
 Top