I’m not claiming that you made that screenshot. I appreciate everything else about it, but I wish you had found a clean version.

I made this comment because self censorship is a problematic pattern that should have no place on the Fediverse. Saying nothing is equivalent to endorsement, to which I cannot morally oblige.

Thank you for your perspective, I’d like to hear more of your thoughts on the matter.

You can still say fuck on the internet, idk what kind of anti fuck propaganda this is.

Counterargument: ctrl+f is a great place for regex. Write once read never problems are a great application for unreadable languages. Imagine if people wrote scripts in the language vi uses for editnig<escape>bceediting, which mostly isn’t even displayed as it’s typed! <escape>

But yeah, it’s kind of terrible for anything else.

I don’t know much lisp, but in scheme you can do (1 . + . 2) = (+ 1 2)

Nice timing, I just finished it!

I was able to adjust the bit mask format to be easier to work with by hand and got it most of the way, then used the SAT solver to quickly finish the rest when I got stuck.

Sorry, I was (without realizing) also responding to the claim you made in your other comment which links that article.

Thank you for your time.

I read through the exact message chain that article is referencing some time ago, which did not lead me to the conclusion the article would suggest. It seems that he consistently refers to AI use from the perspective of finding bugs more so than than fixing them, which he could definitely do a better job clarifying.

The KDE thing was a specific person declaring that they would hold a meeting about Gen AI in KDE, who hasn’t contributed to the project in years otherwise. Nobody is going to convince everyone to compile their own vibecoded version of KDE’s projects.

EDIT: See https://discuss.kde.org/t/sorry-to-bring-up-a-contentious-topic-kde-ai-llm-policy/46333/187. The developers seem to be responding in an acceptable manner, although I only looked at the start and end since it’s quite a long discussion.

“But it is what it is: the new normal with a lot of fixes, many of them due to review by various AI tools.”

AFAIK the “huge updates” are written by humans in response to LLM found bugs.

Based on my other comment, do you have any in mind that would be more appropriate?

For each operation my CPU’s ALU can do, I need to find a bit mask that turns it on only for the desired set of 8 bit opcodes. The bit mask is of the form [01_].[01_][01_][01_][01_][01_][01_][01_][01_] where 0 and 1 mean the bit has to match and _ means it doesn’t matter. The bit before the . is the xor of all the other bits in the opcode.

The solver has to figure out both which opcodes represent each instruction and what bit masks are needed to give them the desired operations.

I don’t know what that’s from, but the premise of “person thinks name tag is for their benefit” alone would be funny enough even if it was actually a name tag.

::: spoiler

Most so called inventions and discoveries are things that others have already done or will do anyway but get no credit for.

I’m under the impression that in most of those cases it is a matter of duplication of work, rather than plagiarism as is being discussed here.

For this problem, the reward is also 1 million dollars. Surely you’re not claiming it’s ok for Sam Altman to take the prize over someone who did the majority of the work.

I say this as someone who releases all their software under open source licenses which maximize the ability to share under the condition that attribution and the ability to further share/alter is preserved.

There is such a thing as malicious sharing of information/software/academic works, e.g. the distribution of proprietary software tools, plagiarism, etc. Harmful sharing ultimately limits the sharing of other information such as original authorship and source code. :::

tl;dr

If the Clay Math Institute knew for certain that Sam Altman was lying about authorship, they wouldn’t want to give him the prize. That makes these actions deceptive and by principles of radical sharing of knowledge, morally wrong.

I appreciate your perspective, thanks for the discussion.

Knowledge cannot be stollen. That concept is human fabrication. Knowledge is meant to be shared and once share is flow freely.

Stealing knowledge in an academic context means using it without credit, aka plagiarism, much unlike the common definition for media.

Attribution doesn’t restrict the flow of information, it simply gives credit where it is due. Refusing to attribute a work, strictly speaking, limits the flow of authorial information.

As stated by the article, if sharing work may be punished by a bad actor people will selfishly restrict the flow of useful information in response to protect themselves from plagiarism. Doing something that makes academics choose between further advancement of their field and their own self interest is the principle malfeasance.

It’s a matter of learning your desktop environment’s shortcuts for managing windows. For example, I always set up a 3x3 grid of virtual desktops on KDE so I can play act at being those weird wall street people with 9 monitors:

https://xkcd.com/2101/

I’m not trying to manufacture anything. I made this post to release some stress about having accidentally posted there, fully expecting destructive moderator action. It seems I didn’t match any of their filters like BluJay320’s “Ah, another Russian bot.” comment.

Sorry if I did end up creating drama in spite of my intent.

It’s not about voting for the lesser evil, but against the worse one. The way the United States is structured, which influences the way its people think about voting and vice versa, you are given only two options when voting for president:

• Vote for the Democrat one
• Vote for the Republican one

But… you might think you’re clever and say “I should just vote for neither of them, nobody will stop me”. If your state has RCV then put your preferred candidate as a first pick and just place Democrat before Republican. Problem solved, no more strategic voting. Unfortunately, precious few states have adopted this for any elections, let alone the presidency.

In states without RCV, there are 3 equivalent cases from your perspective:

• Vote Republican: Increment their number by 1
  • Overall effect +1 for Republicans
• Vote Democrat: Increment a threatening score by 1, thereby requiring Republicans to gain 1 more vote to win
  • Overall effect -1 for Republicans
• Don’t vote or vote for a non threatening party/candidate
  • Overall effect 0 for Republicans

Forgive me for assuming the reader wants to get Republicans (and Republican aligned Democrats) out of office. In this case, it is your responsibility to vote for the most threatening candidate. It’s a sick trick of game theory, which is why RCV is so important.

Getting mauled by a farmbot IRL any% wr.