Why the f*ck would authors fail to check everything unless they were just being lazy. Its one thing to get assistance. It is totally another to give up all responsibility when you use AI. I wouldn't trust anything they did with or without AI.
Yes because PhDs from western countries don't lazily publish AI generated research at all. No wait they do. There was no need to bring up the authors country of origin as being "third world"
I always considered wikipedia to be "Ok" but then found that their incessant beggaring was making them a profit organization with heavy handed internal politics. So not sure that using them as a reference is exactly good.
I found that a project of mine grew beyond my ability to reason about many parts of it either individually or holistically and started using AI. AI started becoming a context nightmare shuttling context back and forth from session to session, finding the right context and getting it applied. I eventually came up with Determined. (https://github.com/bartanderson/Determined) I am currently using it for two different projects and I developed it for other people to use besides me but debated showing it to others. AI has been a big help to me in writing it but it came from my realizations through conversations with AI and one pointed one where it told me what I was doing was not done well by AI. So I started doing more deterministic analysis and that grew and grew and I added languages and the concept of fsms used to capture discrete state machine architecture and reason about them as well as coalescing docs and other things about the software. An AI is able to use it pretty easily (I have been using Claude but have been using it to help train opencode to drive a project for it).
If you don't like AI you can still use it to analyze your software. It will tell you things that are hard to see unless you wrote it and have a great memory. I doubt I will be taking pull requests for changes, but feel free to pull down a copy for yourself and do with it what you will. That was what I am doing and am happy sharing it now that there was a forum to do so.
That was my first thought, though I love the idea of AI having voice. I just really didn't like the slowness or quality of speech. There are so many better voices out there. And giving your AI an attitude. Well... I guess. I plan on making one of mine the DM for a game and to have it handle NPCS as well. Don't mind me. Just an old retired guy with preferences :)
Well, I was considering giving this a look, maybe spinning it up. But with the elitist bs coming down from the top making this not a community effort but a product, fuck it. There is nothing here for me.
I‘m not being ironic. With a dictator you have full responsibility concentrated in a single person. Bureaucracies are the opposite: they’re intentionally setup to diffuse responsibility as much as possible and hold no one accountable. Instead of a single guy, you now have to fight something resembling a fungus. This is much harder: instead of a decapitation strike, you face an enemy that is more resilient and resistant to change, and near impossible to kill.
Are you saying that historically very bureaucratic countries have been worse to live in than dictatorships? Not sure I follow actually. It sounds very strange to me. Isn’t also the first move of all dictators to take over all institutions with their own people?
They are saying that in bureaucratic countries there is not a single entity that can be held accountable, which means that "bad" decisions, are not easily undone.
Likewise it means that "good" decisions are hard to change.
It is a statement about the momentum of change, not about it's worth or intention.
There is no further comparison made between these governmental forms and how they affect their subjects.
Red herring how exactly? The conversation is literally:
”> In reality, they want to be dictators.
Its much worse than that. They want to be unaccountable bureaucrats.”
Edit: to expand on what I mean. I read so much negativity and hyperboles here on the EU. It is full of problems absolutely but ”With a dictator you have full responsibility concentrated in a single person” is simply not true. Dictorships are master minds of shifting blame. EU has problems but what large organization works better? US? India? China? Brazil? I’m obviously biased as a European but I’d pick the eu any day.
A red herring is a bait planted specifically to derail a conversation.
I will make an example to demonstrate this in a setting which is less loaded.
Beware that all analogies are flawed in essence, so a direct transfer to our conversation will be difficult, especially since I am trying to be blatant. But since I want to answer your question of where the red herring lies I feel like that is the easiest way:
A (raising an issue): This hole in the wall sucks, I can't stand it. At least if we were in a tent we could sew it shut.
B (planter of herrings): So you'd rather live in a tent than in a house? Don't you know that tents are generally worse than houses?
C (the innocent bystander lead astray): I also much prefer houses. You hear so many bad things about them, but in the end nothing is better. No caves, no huts, and certainly no tents. I'd pick a house any day of the week.
Did you notice that we are no longer talking about the hole in the wall?
The hole could be required for mold-prevention, it could just be an oversight that is actually fixable, it might be a trade-off. But since we are no longer talking about the hole we will never know.
> ... but ”With a dictator you have full responsibility concentrated in a single person” is simply not true. Dictorships are master minds of shifting blame.
This is you talking about the hole in the wall. I am also not convinced by the original argument, but I do believe that there is some substance to be explored.
> ... I’m obviously biased as a European but I’d pick the eu any day.
This is you falling for the red herring. We don't know if the original poster lives in the EU. We don't know if they prefer it to a dictatorship, but it also does not matter.
The original qualms are that there is seemingly no single point you can go to to stop the endeavor once and for all, which in this context is encryption backdoors within the EU.
We could be talking about how the same mechanics that make this so frustrating are useful elsewhere; find out or explain why the things are the way they are. We could be uncovering a valid flaw in the system just waiting to be fixed; conclude that things don't have to be this way.
Instead, we ask ourselves if we like living in the EU better than in other places.
We've lost the plot, so to speak: There is no more insight to be had.
This is what makes a red herring so obnoxious to deal with.
It is an easy trap to lay if you don't want to think about something or hinder someone, but takes so much effort to recover from.
In the tent-example it is easy to see that we completely derailed and stopped talking about what matters. Unfortunately, reality is much more subtle and not everyone has the same goals in mind. At least on HN I'd like to try and keep discovery in focus and once we reach the stage where it's only about opinions there is nothing more to discover.
Let them learn their lesson. As soon as it comes together it will be taken over by the first AI to crack it and then they will be pwned and have to learn the hard way. No child, spoiled, stupid or otherwise will learn hard lessons without experiencing pain.
Canada is about the learn this lesson the hard way with bill C-22. At the rate things are going, Canadians will wake up to find themselves being blocked by WhatsApp, iMessage, Signal and other popular messaging apps.
The legislation currently have weak surface level protections against encryption backdoors, but law enforcement are seeking to remove those. The legislation also requires mandatory data retention and surveillance, which also means that messaging apps will ban Canada.
Yeah the bureaucracy like eu is almost a perfect setup to deflect responsibility. "Apparently the measures taken by our predecessors were not ideal in hindsight but the need to protect our children remains of utmost importance. With the lessons learned we will now take steps to ensure the bright future for us all!" lol
reply