TehPers

This sounds like an opportunity to follow 4chan (of all things) and politely tell them to fuck off.

If you believe they violated Beehaw’s rules, report them.

If you want to be in a space without moderation, then Beehaw isn’t for you. Moderation isn’t only spam filtering. If you believe that’s what moderation should be, that’s okay. But that isn’t what it is here or in almost any space.

Beehaw’s only rule is to bee nice. Surely anything that violates that rule isn’t worth any of our time to read.

Government-backed email would also help solve the “is this a bot” problem by limiting the number of email addresses that can be used, though naturally you’d also lose anonymity using that email.

There’s also the issue that if the emails are predictable, spam and phishing become much easier.

I’m mixed on this one. If we could choose the username and there’s no API for anything other than “is this a person” and your classic IMAP/SMTP stuff, then I’d be a lot more on board I think.

Is this your first time here?

Your account is brand new and you’ve already posted now three posts related to JPlus in this community in one day. Please tell me you’re joking with this one.

This post is a GitHub link to the project. Cool, I love seeing new projects, especially when the goal is to make it harder to write buggy code.

The other post is an article that immediately links to the GitHub. The GitHub contains a link at the top to, what I can tell, the same exact article. Both the article and the GitHub README explain what JPlus is and how to use it.

Why is this two posts when they contain the same information and link to each other directly at the top?

This is a distinction without a difference. Both introduce and explain how to use the project.

How does this post differ from this one? Why make two posts for the same thing?

Surely agreeing to that contract was not part of the job description when they signed on. I’m curious if they could argue that the contract was signed under duress and have it voided, then sue the company for using their likeness without permission.

I bought a license many, many years ago and loved SmartGit. I just use the cli now, but if you’re looking for a GUI, it’s a great choice.

It’s not really (which says more about corporations than anything).

Yep! You would need not only an AI superintelligence capable of reflecting and adapting, but legislation which holds liable those superintelligences and grants them the rights and obligations of a human. Because there is no concept of reward of punishment to a LLM, they can never be replacements for people.

There is a fundamental limitation of all LLMs that prevents it from doing as much as you might think, regardless of how accurate they are (and they are not):

LLMs cannot take liability. When they make mistakes, they cannot take responsibility for those mistakes. The person who used the LLM will always be liable instead.

So any automation as a result of LLMs removing jobs will end up punting that liability to the next person up the chain. Management will literally have nobody to blame but themselves, and that’s their worst nightmare.

Anyway, this is of course assuming capabilities that don’t exist.

The conclusion of this experiment is objectively wrong when generalized. At work, to my disappointment, we have been trying for years to make this work, and it has been failure after failure (and I wish we’d just stop, but eventually we moved to more useful stuff like building tools adjacent to the problem, which is honestly the only reason I stuck around).

There are a couple reasons why this problem cannot succeed:

1. The outputs of LLMs are nondeterministic. Most problems require determinism. For example, REST API standards require idempotency from some kinds of requests, and a LLM without a fixed seed and a temperature of 0 will return different responses at least some of the time.
2. Most real-world problems are not simple input-output machines. When calling, let’s say for example, an API to post a message to Lemmy, that endpoint does a lot of work. It needs to store the message in the darabase, federate the message, and verify that the message is safe. It also needs to validate the user’s credential before all of this, and it needs to record telemetry for observability purposes. LLMs are not able to do all this. They might, if you’re really lucky, be able to generate code that does this, but a single LLM call can’t do it by itself.
3. Some real world problems operate on unbounded input sizes. Context sizes are constrained and as currently designed cannot handle unbounded inputs. See signal processing for an example of this, and for an example of a problem a LLM cannot solve because it cannot receive the input.
4. LLM outputs cannot be deterministically improved. You can make changes to prompts and so on but the output will not monotonically improve when doing this. Improving one result often means sacrificing another result.
5. The kinds of models you want to run are not in your control. Using Claude? K Anthropic updated the model and now your outputs all changed and you need to update your prompts again. This fucked us over many times.

The list keeps going on. My suggestion? Just don’t. You’ll spend less time implementing the thing than trying to get an LLM to do it. You’ll save operating expenses. You’ll be less of an asshole.

Graham Platner isn’t an elected official, nor are any of the three legislators named Graham Platner, nor are any of Louis Rossman’s other names Graham Platner.

Please, if you’re going to troll, make a better attempt at it. Or even better, take it somewhere else.

He literally put out a video not that long ago praising three democratic legislators for proposing a right to repair bill. Weird impression.

By “crackers” I mean “black hat hackers”.

Ok I just misread it then, sorry!

What they’re doing should be outright illegal in most countries; it’s equivalent to changing a contract unilaterally after both parties signed it.

Update to [COMPANY NAME]'s Policies

Yes, this should be illegal, but it’s already common practice. I’m just hoping that enough of this will eventually get people to stop buying these products, and hopefully we can start seeing some real legislation against it in some countries.

Additionally, I’d strongly advise against buying any sort of “smart” device, unless you’re pretty sure the benefits of connecting your toaster to the internet outweighs all the risks.

This should be obvious at this point. “Smart” just means “internet-connected”, and we already know what happens to every device that connects to a remote server during regular operation: telemetry (and not the nice debugging kind but the “what do you use” kind), and advertisements.

Including corporations and crackers

The “crackers” part of this confuses me. Samsung is a Korean company. The chairman’s name is Lee Jae-yong (이재용). Samsung NA’s CEO is Yoonie Joung. Maybe I’m misreading this?

Lol we did something like this at work once and it was pretty fun.

Here’s an idea: it’s a royal pain in the ass to transfer Firefox data from one mobile device to another without using their cloud sync feature. I’d love a way to do that while keeping the data local only.

It will probably end up running better for them anyway.

Seriously, I use Office at work, and I wonder everyday why anyone subjects themselves to it. Then I subject myself to it because that’s what I’m supposed to use. But I sure as hell don’t at home.

It sounded from the PSF article that the biggest reason they rejected it, aside from the ethical concerns, was that they could be asked to give the money back if they are found to be violating that term anywhere and at any time. Even if they didn’t care about the term regarding DEI, the risk of being liable for $1.5m to the US government all because an orange blob didn’t like the logo is too great of a risk.