Wow, that's... that's amazing. Talk about unexpected -- their Linux app is terrible, and I assumed always would be! Gonna go apply to Discord, brb.
I did a Rust GUI survey for a comment on here a few days ago, so for anyone not familiar with the jargon: the last bit is basically saying they're using a more "pure" Rust framework rather than one that uses Rust to render a webview. The latter is popular because the web stack is undeniably the best for frontend styling and composition, but it's also something of a middle ground between Electron (runs a whole browser for its web stack) and something like this.
GPUI in particular is basically just Zed opensourcing their handrolled setup. AFAIK this is the first major app to adopt it (?), but the ecosystem is otherwise healthy. See https://gpui-kit.com/ , with ~20k stars.
...thus implying that you'd rather the preeminent safety-focused lab not have used your interpretibility research, as they're technically a for-profit company with various closed-source assets?
I am certainly biased by a passionate distaste for IP law in general, but I am honestly curious to hear the reasoning behind it in this case.
In case it helps: this is a "research prototype", so I'd assume that seeing one or more aspects used in a highly impactful paper would be about the best possible outcome. Is this about publish-or-perish stuff, perhaps (e.g. citation "importance" for the algos)? Or maybe you're okay with this in general, but are regretful because it's Anthropic in particular?
OP was pretty clear they wanted attribution, so you have hallucinated an entirely novel implicated desite for exclusion.
Seeing as the question posed out of "[honest curiosity]" to someone else is then immediately answered by yourself host without you even pausing to put on a sock, I think your honesty is very questionable.
Oh sorry, I must have misunderstood! My bad, honestly; I was under the impression that GPL vs. MIT was about copyleft stuff, which would seem to preclude Anthropic's use of that project altogether. Not 100% sure how it relates to attribution still but I'll have to look into it I guess.
I don't really understand what was "answered by [my]self host" nor what a "desite for exclusion" means but it seems beside the point I think. Also not sure what the alternative to curiosity is. Like, I'd be trying to entrap this prestigious researcher in some legal sense...?
I think I misunderstood GPL per a comment above so it's all kinda moot anyway, but my original understanding was that it was a copyleft license, so wishing it was GPL would be equivelant to wishing Anthropic had not used that work at all.
Attribution is certainly polite, and I sorta doubt Anthropic of all groups is intentionally witholding it for h-score or prestige, but that's all a much lower-stakes conversation than potential license violations. AFAIU.
Yeah nothing made me more confident in my choice of terminal (after trying quite a few) than seeing that "Kitty" graphics protocols are all over the place for SotA TUIs. Love to see it!
But really Kitty is the GOAT because of the customization ethos. Just top-notch.
The readme seems to be written for enterprise project managers. Does anyone know what philosophy or academic ontology work this ties to, if any? I’m having trouble understanding the specifics, I’ll be honest…
This isn't really anything to do with ontology in the philosophical or academic sense, outside of computer science.
In software, an ontology is just a machine-readable definition of the entities in a system - their names, properties, relationships etc. This tool analyzes a system and produces such a definition for agents to use.
I happen to program management at scale and this is indeed very relevant to my interests.
Imagine if you will, 10 groups inside a broader org. Each of those groups have teams that work on different stuff, but at the org level and cross team level managers and leadership still need to make sense of it all and if you ever want to connect the dots across work you need a common language.
Now multiply that problem across a large enterprise if you want a company brain or any of the context to be trustworthy for usage at scale or for high accuracy and trust work.
This is a a tooling solution for the schema and government layer that enables that so you can have an empowered human say "what team X calls Foo, and what team Y call Bar should map to our approved definition for Baz and here is how we validate their data against that shared classification."
For media bosses, copyright is a pseudo-property† right
...it's not "pseudo". What does the author think "IP" stands for?
Regardless, 'I agree with these people I always disagree with are somehow right this time despite acting like they always do' should be a sign that some reflection is needed!
I guess “pseudo” based on an understanding of “ownership” that works only for physical objects; not for 1:1 replicas and not for “mind stuff”. You cannot “own” a thought. It’s difficult to own an earthworm, unless you keep it in a confined container. Once it slips out, you lose ownership.
Based on that perspective, intellectual property is a construct, an illusion, newspeak, and thus “pseudo”.
Oh for sure, I agree to some extent! All property rights are more illusory and arbitrary than we assume as people born into capitalism (propertyism), but property rights concerning brands, processes, and… basically any idea are particularly illusory.
In context of this paper though, the author is saying the opposite, and mocking the fatcat CEOs for corrupting the pure institution of copyright so.
Am I miffed that something I've tried multiple times with the latest models has been accomplished here so beautifully, and in LUA (!!!) nonetheless? A little! But it's worth it to know that it is indeed possible...
Great work. I doubt you care, but try not to get caught up in the idea that you might have violated someones god-given property rights by making pretty flowers for fun in the margins of PDFs.
I was gonna wax poetic, but I think this explains it pretty well -- the bulletin and the campaign dirs get more usage than the rest of directory combined, I think. I've completely disabled all harness-internal memory mechanisms, as they're too opaque, make weird assumptions about TTL for random one-off comments, and (obv) aren't cross-harness.
Look I'm Google's #1 hater but this is just goofy lol. There are multiple buildings full of Android developers, and have been for at least a decade; to say that it's not "made" by them is a huge stretch. Technically all of their products are just ripoffs of Sun & Xerox, right? Or Turing & Church, I suppose!
When YouTube was acquired by Google, it was already pretty similar in shape as a product to what it is now. The biggest differences are scale, the addition of advertising, and ancillary integration with other Google services. The first is a function of growth, the second is exactly what Google would be expected to do to monetize the service, and the third is another logical implication of "acquisition". (You could quibble and say they added vertical shorts and live video, but I don't think those are even fundamentally different from a product perspective from what YouTube was already doing in 2006, just fast-forwarded to adapt to the consumer technology we have today).
That's very different from Android, which was an unreleased prototype that had zero users and was dramatically different even from what ended up shipping as the first product, let alone what it is today. Android at acquisition would be unrecognizable from what the majority of people worldwide are typing on this very minute.
Yes certainly if you discount the 20 years of development, the creator tools, the advertiser tools, monetizing creators, live streaming, completely rewriting the whole thing, etc. Google didn't develop YouTube much.
> Yes certainly if you discount the 20 years of development, the creator tools, the advertiser tools, monetizing creators, live streaming, completely rewriting the whole thing, etc. Google didn't develop YouTube much.
Are you serious? Just the hardware build Google did for Youtube alone. They 1000x (not %, times) their backbone bandwidth and they're still increasing it. Youtube used to have 2 small datacenters where they were acquired. Now it's 20% or so of half of the total Google DCs.
> Are you serious? Just the hardware build Google did for Youtube alone. They 1000x (not %, times) their backbone bandwidth and they're still increasing it. Youtube used to have 2 small datacenters where they were acquired. Now it's 20% or so of half of the total Google DCs.
> That's nothing?
Either you replied to the wrong comment or you didn't read the comment you're replying to.
I did a Rust GUI survey for a comment on here a few days ago, so for anyone not familiar with the jargon: the last bit is basically saying they're using a more "pure" Rust framework rather than one that uses Rust to render a webview. The latter is popular because the web stack is undeniably the best for frontend styling and composition, but it's also something of a middle ground between Electron (runs a whole browser for its web stack) and something like this.
GPUI in particular is basically just Zed opensourcing their handrolled setup. AFAIK this is the first major app to adopt it (?), but the ecosystem is otherwise healthy. See https://gpui-kit.com/ , with ~20k stars.
reply