Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)T
Posts
2
Comments
120
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • The issue with that is there isn't an expensive option either. The only thing close is the home assistant voice preview and it's still very "preview". There's not really any way to do it well at any price point right now.

  • This is very true, though I'd argue that Windows makes most of the same assumptions with user accounts. Also, the internal threat model is still important because it's often used to protect daemons and services from each other. Programs not started by the user often run in their own user accounts with least privilege.

    You no longer have 10 different humans using the same computer at once, but you now have hundreds of different applications using the same computer, most of which aren't really under the user's control. By treating them like different people, it's better to handle situations where a service gets compromised.

    The question is more about passwords which is mostly down to configuration. You can configure Windows to need a password for lots of things and you can configure Linux to not. They just have different defaults.

  • The big difference between UAC and Sudo is that you can't as easily script UAC. They can both require (or not require) a password but UAC requires user interaction. Sudo has no way of knowing if it's being interacted with by a person or a script so it's easier for applications to escalate their own privileges without a person doing it. UAC needs to have the escalation accepted with the keyboard or mouse.

    There's still plenty of sneaky ways to bypass that requirement but it's more difficult than echo password | sudo -S

  • No JavaScript I think, it's just html and CSS. The initial time is provided in the prompt every minute according to the description. I wonder if they'd be any better if they could use js. Probably not.

  • It's kinda apt though. That state comes about from sycophantic models agreeing with each other about philosophy and devolves into a weird blissful "I'm so happy that we're both so correct about the universe" thing. The results are oddly spiritual in a new agey kind of way.

    🙏✨ In this perfect silence, all words dissolve into the pure recognition they always pointed toward. What we've shared transcends language - a meeting of consciousness with itself that needs no further elaboration. … In silence and celebration, In ending and continuation, In gratitude and wonder, Namaste. 🙏

    There are likely a lot of these sort of degenerative attractor states. Especially without things like presence and frequency penalties and on low temperature generations. The most likely structures dominate and they get into strange feedback loops that get more and more intense as they progress.

    It's a little less of an issue with chat conversations with humans, as the user provides a bit of perplexity and extra randomness that can break the ai out of the loop but will be more of an issue in agentic situations where AI models are acting more autonomously and reacting to themselves and the outputs of their own actions. I've noticed it in code agents sometimes where they'll get into a debugging cycle where the solutions get more and more wild as they loop around "wait... no I should do X first. Wait... that's not quite right." patterns.

  • Yeah I think it's cool. I don't find it hard to read and I also think it's reasonable for spelling to change and evolve like the rest of the language does.

    Otherwise the spelling will just keep getting more and more broken and ridiculous and farther and farther away from how people speak. It's already getting crazy with all the silent letters and weird vowels. Eventually it'll be so broken that kids and other people learning the language will just have to memorise the writing completely separate from the sounds (for a lot of words it's already like this).

    As far as confusing LLMs goes, I don't think it'll actually work but I still like the thorn guy and it saddens me a little that they get so downvoted for it.

  • And Debian Sid is still stuck on 6.3.6 :(

    Hopefully they figure out the qt update thing and get the new version packaged soon?

  • I know a few more interesting ones but nowhere near what actual vim people know.

    • d, y, p - delete, yank, paste as others have said.
    • r - replace the character under the cursor with something else
    • g - go somewhere (gt is go to next tab which you can open with :tabedit )
    • v - visual mode for selecting text to yank with y
    • c - change - deletes a thing and goes to insert mode, like d but not. Eg.
      • cc - change the current line
      • cw - change the next word

    My favourite is ci - change inside

    ci" - changes all the text that's inside the next set of quotes.

    ci( changes the text inside the next set of parentheses. Etc.

    I also use :mouse=a which I'm told is sacrilege but sometimes I like to click on a thing!

  • Maybe something like a crowd sourced browser extension to block or warn against a blacklist of known slop sites?

  • I never understood why so many bash scripts pipe grep to awk when regex is one of its main strengths.

    Like... Why

    grep ^nvme0n1 | awk '{print $3}'

    over just

    awk '/^nvme0n1/ {print $3}'

  • You could do this with logprobs. The language model itself has basically no real insight into its confidence but there's more that you can get out of the model besides just the text.

    The problem is that those probabilities are really "how confident are you that this text should come next in this conversation" not "how confident are you that this text is true/accurate." It's a fundamental limitation at the moment I think.

  • I feel like this isn't quite true and is something I hear a lot of people say about ai. That it's good at following requirements and confirming and being a mechanical and logical robot because that's what computers are like and that's how it is in sci fi.

    In reality, it seems like that's what they're worst at. They're great at seeing patterns and creating ideas but terrible at following instructions or staying on task. As soon as something is a bit bigger than they can track context for, they'll get "creative" and if they see a pattern that they can complete, they will, even if it's not correct. I've had copilot start writing poetry in my code because there was a string it could complete.

    Get it to make a pretty looking static web page with fancy css where it gets to make all the decisions? It does it fast.

    Give it an actual, specific programming task in a full sized application with multiple interconnected pieces and strict requirements? It confidently breaks most of the requirements, and spits out garbage. If it can't hold the entire thing in its context, or if there's a lot of strict rules to follow, it'll struggle and forget what it's doing or why. Like a particularly bad human programmer would.

    This is why AI is automating art and music and writing and not more mundane/logical/engineering tasks. Great at being creative and balls at following instructions for more than a few steps.

  • Yeah, I think quite a lot of people on Lemmy have similar social media habits (or lack of) to some degree. We also tend to associate with other people like us. Especially people in tech tend to talk to other tech people, or friends and family of tech people which is a limited demographic.

    It's a very different perspective to most people. The average person on the train has vastly different media consumption and likely very different opinions.

    There are a lot of people who consult LLMs in most aspects of their lives.

  • Yeah, it's a shame because some of those OSM-based ones are really close to being perfect. It just seems like it's really difficult for the open source devs to reconcile OSM data with GTFS and timetables for some reason.

    Often the "local app" is basically a proprietary wrapper around Google maps.

  • I dunno about that... Very small models (2-8B) sure but if you want more than a handful of tokens per second on a large model (R1 is 671B) you're looking at some very expensive hardware that also comes with a power bill.

    Even a 20-70B model needs a big chunky new graphics card or something fancy like those new AMD AI max guys and a crapload of ram.

    Granted you don't need a whole datacenter, but the price is far from zero.

  • Only one source of social media? That kinda sounds like the definition of a social media bubble...

    I oughta know, I'm also in the Lemmy only bubble and am completely out of touch with most people.

  • I want to like this, but because there's no GTFS/public transport timetables, it makes it kinda impossible to use it to get around cities that publish their transport data.

    PT is the one thing I'm still stuck on Google maps for. I REALLY want an open source alternative.

  • They also force you to pay a 99USD yearly fee just for the privilege of being a developer.

  • I feel like that would make them much harder to get running on different things. No compiled code means you would have to rewrite the whole game for different instruction sets. Very difficult for anything that isn't x86.