That it's centralized, while serial numbers are not (you could easily have two manufacturers that use the same numbering scheme and find yourself with two different appliances from two different manufacturers with the same serial number).
This is more akin to VINs for vehicles. EDIT: and not even that is an accurate comparison.
> If you really want a firm anti-AI community with staying power, it’s looking like you will need a neo-Amish movement, complete with isolationism.
The funny thing is that as soon as communities do this and take an anti-LLM stance they get mocked, called luddites, they get told they're living in a word that doesn't exist anymore and that AI is here to stay, stop going against the current.
The Luddites weren't against technology, they were against the inhumane exploitation of workers and dangerous child labor, made that much worse through technology. All Ludd supposedly did was smash a couple frames after being criticized for his output, but the Luddites' grievances were really just the foremost among those that had been simmering among textile workers for as long as there has ever been a textile industry, long before industrial automation was a thing.
As for myself, I certainly don't want a community based on reactionary dogma, but I would certainly prefer to be around people who at least have their eyes open, and are aware of the corrosive effects that AI can have or already does.
The Luddites were about protecting their privileged hereditary position against competition from women and other outsiders. Not unlike the privilege of contemporary software engineers like myself.
A lot of labor unions were about racism and xenophobia too, but they did agitate for better working conditions nonetheless. For sure it's not black and white.
...against competition from women, who of course infamously had never been part of the textile industry? Who knew the Molyneux sisters were the Molyneux brothers all along?
Maybe try to inform yourself about the historical context before popping off? The Luddites were part of a medieval craft guild that was largely hereditary and had never admitted women. They even roughed up female weavers to deter them from employment in the trade.
Of course weaving has largely been a female-dominated craft from time immemorial. That doesn't mean you can just apply stereotypes to a historical situation you apparently know nothing about and pretend you're being both witty and insightful.
Then block those people. Either they're stupid and don't understand the bad incentives that LLMs create in forums, or they do understand and they're malicious.
I keep seeing hints of these communities existing, here in hn comments. Every time a thread is about communities that are still good, still human etc someone pops up saying these communities exist, but no-one ever mentions what these communities are.
I mean, I get it: one risks eternal-september-ing them as soon as the hn crowd finds out about them, but sometimes it's really frustrating going down a thread hoping to find better indications for these mythical great communities and always coming back empty-handed.
I think they definitionally have to be smallish groups of people who actually know each other at least a little bit, so you can't just fill in a sign-up form and join one, but you can start your own.
I know other communities that I really doubt would appeal to anyone here. However, Lobsters is basically Hacker News, but anti-AI, smaller, and with a (low) barrier to entry.
I'm part of a maker community that I really enjoy being a part of. We don't invite random people, but if someone makes something cool, I'll send them an invitation. I think it's this sort of thing that people are referring to when they talk about these communities.
Yeah. Because we don't want hacker news assholes to find them and destroy them, the way they've been systematically pillaging the rest of the Internet.
Haskell packages in arch are dynamically, rather than statically, linked, which pulls in a large amount of transitive dependencies (reportedly in the neighborhood of a gigabyte). The maintainer has a pretty reasonable (to my eyes) explanation[1] as to why this is the case, but admittedly if I were an arch user I'd probably find it a bit annoying.
> Fernando Alonso said there was now "too much technology" involved in the series
> "That’s the problem that we have," [Max Verstappen] said. "These engines are so complicated[...]"
Am I the only one who raised an eyebrow reading this? Hasn't "technology" always been a big point of F1? Or do they think that only "software" is "technology"?
When you step on the loud paddle but computer says "No" although there is no reason to say "No", that's too much technology.
If you cannot drive in wet conditions without computer intervention because your electric engine applies too much torque for mortal humans to control, that's too much technology.
Agreed. It's misattributing quotes and talking about OpenBSD releases from more than a year ago as if they were upcoming releases. Something's seriously wrong with this article.
This is more akin to VINs for vehicles. EDIT: and not even that is an accurate comparison.
reply