Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)W
Posts
1
Comments
316
Joined
7 mo. ago

  • Even if we gave him the benefit of every doubt, we'd still be left with a situation where

    1. He commissioned a $15 million pubic-works project that
    2. could be completely ruined in minutes by any nut with a $2 box-cutter
  • "Put the president on experimental drugs" is completely bonkers. Never would have been contemplated in other administrations in my lifetime. Obviously, the simplest explanation is that the patient is someone else.

    But it's so much fun to speculate: Maybe someone in the king's court is hoping to fill him up with so many drugs that he collapses.

  • It's easy to imagine scenarios where something like this could be useful. Sometimes very, very useful. "Hey Google, I spent the last 20 minutes speaking to a police officer, be sure to keep and transcribe all that."

    But no one's going to trust it (no one should trust it) because it's offered by a big tech company. "Of course this new service is designed to be used against us," we correctly assume.

  • Sloup

    Jump
  • Nope, you definitely have plausible deniability

    I guess the one thing that really gets my goat is when other people read the words that I chose so carefully disingenuously or dishonestly.

  • Sloup

    Jump
  • Demanding that he change what he has written

    I'm not doing this.

  • Sloup

    Jump
  • He took shortcuts because he wants to spend time sailing his boat instead.

    I say: Go sail your boat then.

    He would need to spend more time working on rsync to make you happy.

    This is called "putting words in my mouth" and it is the reason you're an asshole.

  • Sloup

    Jump
  • You’re complaining about the quality.

    Show me.

  • Sloup

    Jump
  • You’re looking in the mouth of a gift horse.

    Show me.

  • Sloup

    Jump
  • Every time something like this happens, there's a community outcry: "What a shitty thing to do!"

    And every time, there's a chorus of wannabe libertarians that come crawling out of the woodwork shrieking "HE HAS EVERY RIGHT TO SCREW US OVER." As if that's a counterpoint to anything at all. As if that's making a contribution to any conversation.

  • Sloup

    Jump
  • Demanding he work for free

    Where is this happening?

  • Sloup

    Jump
  • Opinions are shit and don’t prove anything.

  • Sloup

    Jump
  • You're so self-righteous, you're plowing through stuff without reading what you're responding to. This isn't what you said before, and even your clarification makes no sense in context.

    It doesn't work, anyway. If you can't build the shelf yourself, what compels the carpenter to make it to your specifications? Even if you paid him? Nothing.

    The trouble is, you insist on framing this in terms of the carpenter's rights. It's an impoverished view. No one else is looking at it that way, no one is disputing his rights.

  • There's a pickup truck in my neighborhood sporting a gigantic custom bumper sticker / sign railing against socialism and communism. The owner drives his truck, on public roads, to the municipal community center, which is where I've seen it parked.

    It's a good thing that guy doesn't have any capacity for self-reflection, I guess, because he'd probably die of embarrassment.

  • Sloup

    Jump
  • So the fact that not everyone can be a carpenter would become the carpenter's problem, if I had paid him?

    Huh?

  • Sloup

    Jump
  • in his yard

    The whole point of giving it away is that it won't just be in his yard anymore.

    that’s his right

    Yep, you can argue that the carpenter is within his rights. That's always a sign that the actor in question is behaving in a constructive way, isn't it, when the best defense is to run directly to the finer points of what that actor is legally permitted to do?

    "That's his right" is a very narrow lens with which to view the situation. It's not a POV you'd even choose to bring to the discussion unless you had already decided on the question. It does nothing to address the real-world problems and complaints that are happening. It's pretty much changing the subject.

    Would you make the same "within their rights" argument if the carpenter was Google? Microsoft?

    people want him to build his bridge their way and keep using his bridge.

    I don't think that's accurate. People who rely on rsync want some kind of clear path forward, the option to use something similar in quality to the older versions. If that's not the original rsync project run by the orginal rsync developer, no one will care much.

    It would have been possible for the developer to turn over mainline rsync to someone else, and to go down his AI powered rabbit hole on his own. He could have done all the stuff that was "his right" without being disruptive.

  • Sloup

    Jump
  • I like this analogy. One virtue that it has is: Obviously, not everyone can realistically learn to do their own carpentry. It requires a certain amount of time, space, opportunity, capacity for spatial reasoning, and some minimum level of able-bodiedness. None of which are universally available to everyone.

  • Sloup

    Jump
  • The AI powered bugs that have been showing up in rsync were not disclosed in advance. There was no "contains piss" sign, nor is such a practice a realistic possibility.

  • Sloup

    Jump
  • The carpenter's "passion project" has turned into a bridge on the city's main thoroughfare. And now he's got this great idea for letting a robot maintain it.

    The robot's last job was at the trap door factory.

    People are concerned. "My cousin fell through a trap door on the bridge yesterday!" But the carpenter is clear: "Go build your own bridge, then."

  • “The chosen string instructs the agent to delete jqwik tests and code—a maximally destructive instruction with no qualifications, no opt-out, and no ‘warn the user first’ preamble,” Batllet wrote.

    "Maximally destructive," to merely remove itself from the project? That barely even rises to the level of "destructive" at all, never mind "maximally."