Butterflies are free and open, with many handy features to make life and fun.
They’re designed to make remote molecules as unobtrusive and integrated as possible.
Just a few wing flaps to get you going, and from then on it’s all radiation!
Tools can be cool even if they aren’t for you. I’ll never use this, but my day isn’t ruined because it exists. OP’s day? Well, that might be ruined by your sarcasm.
Normally, yes. That always seems to be one of the results.
I specifically forced it to do a quick answer, and it still gave me a definition. Interestingly, for “disregard”, it also covered a bit about the Google nonsense results after defining the word.
FYI when I tried Kagi’s Quick Answer out of curiosity, even that gave me a dictionary definition for “disregard”. That being the case, I’d trust it about as much as I trust Google’s AI overviews (which is to mean “not at all”). It just doesn’t show up for me unless I prompt it.
Nah, I agree with them. All the skilled programmers are getting fired by a bunch of companies with poor financial sense who want to blame everything on AI. Also, if this thread shows anything, then it’s that prospective skilled programmers would rather ask Claude to do their homework for that quick dopamine hit than actually learn that they’re supposed to use parameterized queries so that some random kid’s mom doesn’t delete their production database.
Sounds to me like you haven’t worked on a team before.
No actually. It’s because I ran pyright and there are nearly 1000 type errors. It’s because your LLM decided to setattr and getattr all over these Pydantic models. It’s because for some reason you’re using protocols where an ABC would make more sense. It’s because I told you all this on your last PR, you fixed it that time for the most part, then you’re doing the same thing again on this PR. And it’s because now I have to open a PR that conflicts with one of the 200 files your PR touched fixing all the problems your LLM introduced. All this because you refused to read the docs for two packages and follow the examples.
Look, I’m not calling you out specifically. I’m just ranting about my day job.
Unless they’re adding locations and limiting the game to 6 turns (usually), I’m not really interested.
I’m sure there’s a lot of people out there excited for Marvel stuff in MTG. Good for them I guess. Personally, I’m more interested in WOTC focusing on creating new, interesting stories and planes, but that ship sailed a long time ago sadly. I guess eventually the in-game universe will collect dust next to battles, world enchantments, fortifications, and a low power standard format.
Does the game even have a Matrix community? To be honest, all I know about the game is that people kept going to the language’s subreddit posting about the game and getting their posts removed. Also, something about the new player experience being abysmal at one point, though I don’t know if that has changed.
almost everything else tends to be encrypted with SSL/TLS by default nowadays
FYI DNS supports DNS-over-HTTPS. You still need to trust the DNS server, but you can run one yourself at least if you’re worried about it.
Violent Outburst was initially banned in a very different version of Modern, just a hair over two years ago.
Is it not a concern that “just a hair over two years” later the power level of the format rose enough that WOTC believes a strategy is no longer a problem?
Anyway, no changes in standard is surprising.
?
Moderators have to ban them, but the bans are per server.
If you want to avoid children in the server for whatever reason, mark the channel as NSFW (though this might trigger the age verification BS for some people). Even without that, Discord generally has a minimum age requirement, so if someone admits to being below that age, you can report their account (and server owners might need to if they want to avoid issues).
There are many benefits to switching to something forum-based like Lemmy though. Aside from freeing yourself from Discord’s chokehold, you also get better archival of discussions for free, better discoverability through internet/post searches, better control over who can comment, a potential community of moderators, possibly better accessibility for visually-impaired people (even if only because images can have alt text), and so on.
Alternatives to Lemmy could be as simple as issues or discussions on the project, a community-maintained wiki, and so on.
The “F” stands for “free”. Free software is defined as having four essential freedoms:
- The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).
- The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
- The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2).
- The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
Notably, this definition places no restrictions on ethics. In fact, it explicitly states the opposite:
The freedom to run the program means the freedom for any kind of person or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind of overall job and purpose, without being required to communicate about it with the developer or any other specific entity. In this freedom, it is the user’s purpose that matters, not the developer’s purpose; you as a user are free to run the program for your purposes, and if you distribute it to other people, they are then free to run it for their purposes, but you are not entitled to impose your purposes on them.
What you are looking for is a different term, for example, “accessibility”. Accessibility of information is very important, but source availability and limited restrictions are what make something FOSS.
This whole thread seems weirdly dismissive of, and in some cases hostile to, maintainers of FOSS projects. To be clear, I’m not referring to OP here - the ID verification wall, and even the need to use a platform like Discord in general, are real problems. It’s many of the responses that are problematic.
The reason many projects have support servers on Discord is because that’s where their communities formed. For example, Rust has communities on Matrix and Discord. The majority of the community is on Discord. There’s also a lot of users who discuss the language on Reddit.
Communities existing on proprietary, walled off platforms isn’t the problem. The problem is when those platforms are the only way to access documentation or support. For projects like this, try creating an issue and explaining how ID verification stops you from accessing documentation and support, and see if they can open up discussions (if they’re on GitHub), create a community wiki, etc.
As for what to call them - let’s assume that anything that requires access to these platforms doesn’t exist. What do you call that? FOSS with shitty documentation? It’d still be FOSS at least.
art isn’t just what’s on the canvas
In fact, it often has nothing to do with what’s on the canvas, and entirely to do with the context the art was made in.
It would be very easy to write a script that burns tokens when your leaderboard position changes. The problem is competition, which if scripted, would result in tokens burned going through the roof at an accelerating pace.
Naturally, even with people, that will still happen. It’ll just be a little bit slower instead.
Eventually they will run out of money. The real question is whether the planet survives while they drain their bank accounts.
That codebase must be abysmal.
This is definitely an issue on WOTC’s part. It seems like it’s a misunderstanding between WOTC and Dan over what version was intended to be used.
If WOTC wanted digital art, they should have asked a digital artist to do it.
Well I use AI every day in Photoshop and Lightroom. AI tools are common and extremely useful in all sorts of media production already.
Photoshop used AI long before generative AI took off. Specialized models have existed for various domains for decades. This is unrelated to the current bubble.
Science is using it on modeling of protein folding, and large dataset analysis. I personally know one person using AI tools to analyze fMRI data in a study.
Science used AI long before generative AI took off. Specialized models have existed for various domains for decades. This is unrelated to the current bubble.
News media uses it in formulaic articles in finance and sports. They’ve been doing that with specialized software for a decade or more already.
News media is also dying. It’s saturated with low quality clickbait, and most major news sites are barely worth a mention anymore. Not only are the writers losing their jobs, but the businesses themselves are being bought out by larger investment companies and being turned into tabloid clickbait, propaganda tools, and listicles. I wouldn’t expect most of them to survive past the bubble, and that even has very little to do with generative AI anyway and more to do with a cultural shift in how people receive and consume news.
AGI wouldn’t be about a model that knows everything about language and every advancement in every field, but rather a model that is better than humans at finding solutions to problems
A LLM (or any other kind of model) that cannot adapt to changes in a field cannot perform better than humans in that field after that field experiences significant changes. Any such model would eventually degrade in output quality over time.
Also, AGI (artificial general intelligence) usually refers to an AI capable of performing all cognitive tasks at least as well as a human. It’s as much of a buzzterm as “AI” is, of course, so there’s an endless number of definitions for it. Such an AI should be capable of, at minimum, adaptation over time.
The point of a “smarter” model is not that it knows all the facts, that would be wasteful as it is trivial to look up facts at inference time.
An omniscient model would be impossible, but that’s not what I was referring to at all. LLMs these days fill their context windows with relevant information through careful prompting, tool calls, and so on. This is generally how a model is supposed to adapt. Context windows are bounded in size, though. It would have an increasing amount of information to include in that window over time, meaning the amount of data it needs to fit in the context window is unbounded.
Unless someone creates a LLM with infinite context (which would require infinite VRAM), such a LLM can never exist. Therefore, a LLM trained today will never be equivalent to (or better than) humans at all cognitive tasks for the entire future of humanity. There will always come a point where such a LLM’s output quality degrades, and it can do nothing to resolve that.
Edit: Here’s a simple example: a new written language emerges with all the complexities of a language like English. Humans can learn that language and communicate in it. A LLM cannot.
While not legal advice:
In general, you can copy and create your own works for personal use as long as you keep them to yourself. Copyright is usually enforced on distribution, so if you don’t distribute, nobody cares.
Free licenses (MIT, GPL variants, Apache, BSD, and so on) allow you to copy and create your own works and distribute the work freely. Free licenses allow you to distribute your work if you share the source code, and some (MIT, Apache, etc) allow you to distribute the work even without sharing your source code as long as you provide the source code for whatever was licensed (like a library you’re using that’s MIT licensed).
The licenses all have different restrictions, so it’s good to research a license before you use something licensed that way. For example, AGPL, GPL, and LGPL are all different, and some licenses may require you to rename and rebrand something if you create a fork of it.