That’s… not a thing? A human cannot “replace the human aspects with pure OpenClaw.” What would that even mean? A human can take credit for things AI has done, but that doesn’t mean anything other than that they took credit for something. They’re not bootstrapping or a cyborg, just irresponsible.
Damn. Couldn’t be me. Maybe I’m a bad contributor (yes) but I will definitely pop in to fix something that’s bugging me and then never contribute again. I’m not adding new features though, so maybe my contributions are just never significant enough for me to feel any ownership of. I think it’s a lot to expect people to continue to contribute just because they did so once. That would potentially make it less likely people contribute when they can. I’m certainly not going to address an open ticket if it makes me responsible for rewriting the feature when people decide to port or refactor the whole project two years later.
When you do things right, people won’t be sure you’ve done anything at all.
But for real, it’s a dumb sport. All sports are dumb, but this one more so than most others for sure.
This was put out by a lobbying group that happens to be pro AI, just for everyone’s information.
Let’s pay people to use AI to pay people to do the job we used to pay people to do anyway, but this time it’s rent seekers all the way down. Can’t wait.
I’m pretty against AI for most of the same reasons, but it seems really self righteous to write this. I understand wanting to get your feelings out and at this point it really is just screaming into the void, so I’m glad this guy has an outlet, but his anger is at the wrong people. He is the exact person he’s talking about.
He’s upset that someone said “it is what it is” after trying and failing to resist the AI push then goes on to say:
At some point soon, I will have to figure out how to work with AI coding tools if I want to stay in the industry I’ve put my entire adult life into.
People have different lines, and he seems to be upset at people whose lines are ever so slightly before his. He makes it clear he’s not lambasting that particular person, but most people with the “it is what it is” mindset are not champions of AI. They are seeing dramatic changes to their industries and are unable to stay afloat and keep payroll without making drastic changes. He talks about how Amazon and android and these other big companies are terrible, and yet he still uses them. Is he not then also part of the problem? The thing is, there are alternatives to all of the services. We could all just go live in the woods if we really wanted. He seems to be directing his anger at the wrong people. I don’t know this guy’s exact politics, but this does not feel in line with class solidarity. Most people that resign themselves to that mindset feel as though they do not have the power to make a change. Generally, those are not the people that are making the decisions. His ire is misdirected. I’m not saying that we don’t all individually have a responsibility to the planet and each other, but without solidarity movements crumble. This kind of article does not help build solidarity. Would love to have seen him talk about how this experience has made him willing to pay more and get less, and more willing to be inconvenienced in order to avoid these big companies, but no, he fails to see this as an option still. People are still out there resisting Amazon and Google and they could write the same exact article about him. This is his pet issue, so this is the only line worth still defending to him. Seems hypocritical to call others viewpoints selfish when he is unable to see it in himself. Don’t get me wrong, I understand the anger and frustration, but I’d love to see what he’s doing about it other than pointing the finger at a bunch of people that have made the decision that he admitted to potentially also making.
Yeah, I was figuring similarly, but still. I’ve seen enough “harmless” “local” environmental changes spiral to know that at least some thought is warranted about it. I absolutely did not mean to suggest it would be harmful, just that I don’t know enough about it and would hope that somebody knowledgeable looks into it before they recommend scaling.
Yeah, I was figuring similarly, but still. I’ve seen enough “harmless” “local” environmental changes spiral to know that at least some thought is warranted about it. I absolutely did not mean to suggest it would be harmful, just that I don’t know enough about it and would hope that somebody knowledgeable looks into it before they recommend scaling.
In addition to the other comments about how it’s still not bad for efficiency, I’d like to point out the potential political and environmental benefits if we’re still using oil anyway. Oil drilling has a huge negative impact on the environment. Oil spills, pipeline leaks, and the extraction itself can devastate ecosystems. I understand that electronic components in general are bad to produce, but this may allow for minimizing at least one avenue of environmental damage and exploitation. Additionally, oil is a huge part of international politics. Not needing to rely on oil rich nations would relieve some complications regarding international affairs. I don’t know what scaling this looks like, but even if it had a worse conversion rate, it’s still of interest for those reasons. Of course, all of that supposing we cannot switch to an entirely oil free society in the interim.
I do wonder how the removal of water and carbon dioxide from the air will affect local areas though. I imagine more research needs to be done on that.
Apple is being terrible here, but Walmart now has an amazon-like storefront where third parties can list their own products basically entirely apart from Walmart but using their site. Not sure what the percent cut Walmart takes is, but Walmart might never actually buy from a company selling on their site.
Why did you need a shitty AI image for this?
That was an interesting read, but I am not convinced that they understand the “problem” they are trying to address. That would also explain the vagueness of the title. Clearly they think something needs to change because of AI, but they have not explained why, or defined what, or the parameters for a positive change. It makes it feel arbitrary.
At one point he suggests that telling people who are taking the exam after you what specifically is on the exam is not cheating, though his students seemed to think it is. If telling people is encouraged then people taking the test first just have a more difficult task and their results are more likely to reflect their knowledge of the subject. At that point just give people the exam questions early. I had a professor that would give out a study guide and would exclusively pull exam questions from the study guide with the numbers changed. It was basically homework, but you were guaranteed to have seen everything on the exam already and that was such a great way to ensure 1) people fully understood the scope of the test 2) relieve stress about testing. If they don’t see a problem with only certain people knowing exact questions and answers ahead of time, then I’m not sure they understand what cheating is.
Unrelated, but they also blame outlook for why young people hate email. I had to use outlook for a bit and it does suck, but my hatred for email is unrelated.
I’m glad they are experimenting with different methods for testing, but without really knowing more about the class itself this comes off as though this is just a filler class in a degree program and that the test doesn’t really matter because their understanding of the subject doesn’t really matter. In another blog he refers to the article about how AI failed at running a vending machine which was making the rounds a bit ago. In it he laments that we’re going to have to “prepare for that stupid world” where AI is everywhere. If you think we can still fight that, I don’t think accepting AI as a suitable exam tool is the way to do it, even if you make students acknowledge hallucinations. At that point you’re normalizing it. 2/60 is actually not bad for using AI, as he said there will always be those students, but the blog makes me question the content of the class more than anything else.
They should be banned from having any unlocking restrictions after they were found to have violated the initial FCC mandates placed on them. Absolutely disgraceful. No accountability.
Linux is currently easier to use than Windows.
Claim in dispute
People who think otherwise are Windows users who think different equals worse.
In this case different is worse. If you’re used to a restaurant that serves carrots and I serve you peas you can argue that it’s not worse it’s just different. If you’re used to a restaurant that serves carrots and I tell you I don’t know what carrots are and I don’t have any alternative suggestions, but if you can find a store that provides what you’re talking about, appropriately transport that to my location and teach me how to cook them I will do that, then I think it’s fair to say I’m just a worse restaurant. What’s not comparable is easy of use. If you don’t understand how a lack of plug and play affects ease of use then there’s nothing I can say that will fundamentally bridge that gap.
I’m not the person you’re responding to, but if I have headphones or speakers or a mouse that aren’t plug and play on Linux which is what I’m used to on windows, I think it’s fair to say that my experience with Linux is less easy than with windows. The average user is not going to consider that a hardware issue, and it isn’t a hardware issue. If it’s a driver issue, I’d call that a software issue. Im glad to hear your grandma is not having issues with Linux, but as a Linux user I have to agree with the other commenter. A not insignificant amount of people will run up against some issues with Linux that the average user is likely not equipped to solve. I’m not saying that it means Linux is bad, but it really isn’t helpful to act like that’s a complete fabrication.
What a strange framing for the article. It mostly focuses on fascism, but manages to speak down to the people who saw this very obvious outcome. Maybe there’s a level of irony in not seeing, but if you’re using this “lib” framing, which I don’t necessarily agree with but conceding that point, maybe tie that back into how fascists ridicule their detractors. The resistance movement was substantial and full of lots of different people, but the writer points to “the shrillest” of them as though they were uppity women screaming into the void. They might not have accomplished a lot, but framing them as hysterical undercuts your point, even if you are admitting they were right. They were not hysterically correct, they were correct. I’m assuming there’s some irony in there, but even so, that is not enough work done in my opinion to be using that framing. If anyone recalls, the pussy hats were essentially in solidarity with women he open referred to molesting. Let’s see where we are now, oh he’s all over the Epstein files and refusing to release them. Fascists want you to think solidarity is cringe and that protesters are shrill. In reality solidarity is the only place we can truly derive strength from and protesting is one way we exercise our power and freedoms. I’d love if they had taken even a few sentences to mention those things instead of feeding into the fascist narrative about libs.
I believe I got into a conversation on Lemmy where I was saying that there should be a big persistent warning banner stuck on every single AI chat app that “the following information has no relation to reality” or some other thing. The other person kept insisting it was not needed. I’m not saying it would stop all of these events, but it couldn’t hurt.
Not the person you’re responding to, but “most likely, we already need to do a lot of optimization work in early access that we didn’t necessarily want to do at that point” indicates to me that optimization was not a top priority. It’s not unusual for people to optimize after a proof of concept or something, but I imagine in gaming (I don’t do game dev admittedly) you don’t want that too late in the process. If they’re not planning on having it in early access, then their early consistent user base will be more worried about other things. If min spec is 8 then people with 4 won’t get it or won’t complain about poor performance because technically it’s their machine that’s the issue. Lack of complaints about that and feedback about other things further shifts the priority away from optimization. Plus, anyone who’s worked in dev spaces or probably any kind of deliverable knows that there are things that just don’t happen despite your best intentions. Things like optimization are the first to go in the dev space, so by openly admitting to putting it off, it does feel like an admission of “we were probably just not going to get around to it”. In my experience, the further out you plan to optimize, the more man hours you end up wasting, so I don’t see a company investing heavily in that at any point, but doing so post early launch seems wasteful if they legitimately cared about it.
“Oh don’t worry, you won’t have to actually load spreadsheets anymore, just give our AI full access to your files and it will do whatever you ask :)”
Ideally, you’re correct though and companies start investing in optimization. I don’t see it going that way, but a girl can dream.
I used this library all the time. Glad to see they’re keeping the bar high. Extremely concerning that this happened, but the HN comments bring up a good point that the hit piece was probably not an autonomous decision by the AI. The human likely directed it to do that. That seems especially true when you see that a human later tried to make the same change and was pretty salty about it being rejected and their overall GitHub seems suspect. The best part about the whole thing in my opinion is that the “blog” the AI started has a copyright attribution to the AI. I know that’s just a thing blogs have, but it’s funny to see considering we all know AI cannot hold a copyright and the output cannot be copyrighted.