Levitz

7 ms·

1.
by Levitz 7d ago
This is ultimately silly but, I thought this dialogue was with the Flash? Isn't it this one? https://i.redd.it/vmmv2d3h2q181.jpg
2.
by Levitz 11d ago
> The decent people won't hear them on Twitter/X, and the decent people will wonder what's wrong with them if they persist in supporting that thing. Escaping this warped version of morality is precisely what many seek when
3.
by Levitz 12d ago
Fairly certain Occam's Razor would point to "they don't have the capabilities" rather than that.
4.
by Levitz 16d ago
>that techno-optimism has aged very badly, after all There is no way that the kind of progress that happened in the last 60 years doesn't make it into the history books for centuries, very probably millenia. I'm just utterly lo
5.
by Levitz 16d ago
>Our culture is so steeped in Snow’s worldview at this point that it doesn’t quite make sense that things have intrinsic “being” and “ends” to which they are objectively and irrevocably oriented. It’s ultimately all raw material to be fa
6.
by Levitz 16d ago
English is my second language, with that in mind, I felt it may be interesting or amusing to some the parts which were "hard" for me to understand. >Michaelmas term lately over I had no idea that "Michaelmas" was even
7.
by Levitz 20d ago
If the process is the product, then anyone who is not involved with the process has no right to say anything about the product. Not to mention, there's a lot of stuff beyond an "aesthetic experience". Videogames have historic
8.
by Levitz 23d ago
>Or is it only when the people doing it eat more rice than us that it is bad? It's definitely different when the player doesn't even have to play by the market. Comparing US companies and Chinese companies is not apples to ap
9.
by Levitz 23d ago
Not very...? In the west, billionaires are often able to get extremely favorable treatment by the law as an expression of the power money gives. This is not the case in China, in which the party stands at the top. In practice that's ju
10.
by Levitz 27d ago
It doesn't matter if they get it, because they wouldn't care either way. They would just pivot to "but more are destroyed this way" or "but these have value or they wouldn't buy them" or some variant of it
11.
by Levitz 27d ago
It's an excellent play by them, using moral outrage to the benefit of the project. When life gives you lemons...
12.
by Levitz 27d ago
The outraged people don't care. They hate AI, and so anything surrounding AI that can be evil is evil. Books are good, AI destroys books, AI is bad. Furthermore, they like that AI is bad. Because they think it's bad, and being r
13.
by Levitz 1mo ago
The degree to which his works have been dragged through the mud by a bunch of people who insist on calling everything they don't like "capitalism" can't be overstated. The majority of people complaining about capitalism
14.
by Levitz 1mo ago
Not to remove any merit from Poland, but I think the EU deserves a bit of recognition here.
15.
by Levitz 1mo ago
It's actually worrying that people seriously believe stuff like this.
16.
by Levitz 1mo ago
These are two completely different types of mistakes. LLMs are, by now, pretty good at not making "code doesn't work" and "math doesn't work" kind of mistakes when writing code. These are also "easy"
17.
by Levitz 1mo ago
The article includes interactive graphs and scrolling animations that explain them, as well as data.
18.
by Levitz 1mo ago
By now, such things are so prevalent that I don't think it would even make the news anywhere.
19.
by Levitz 1mo ago
It's a form of engaging, plus it's a rant. I've yet to see good outcomes from self-infantilizing.
20.
by Levitz 1mo ago
It's just really hard to affirm that something has "no practical use whatsoever". Maybe it doesn't have use "now", maybe it doesn't have "direct" use but can be used for another finding that is
21.
by Levitz 1mo ago
Yes, how does the LLM make a difference there? Inexperienced developers write bad code. Hell, experienced developers who are outside their domain write bad code too, then you later realize that it's hard to read, or that it leads to ar
22.
by Levitz 1mo ago
It's harder to convince people to all agree on the same, different from the norm, thing. If you've got 5 people in a car and you play ABBA in every road trip, then one day you suggest to change, the problem is not in being okay wi
23.
by Levitz 1mo ago
The "left" as in the party, sure, not that much of an authoritarian leaning. The "left" as in the pervasive group that crawled out of Tumblr, took hold of Twitter back in the day, and has a stronghold on Reddit now? Thos
24.
by Levitz 1mo ago
Then that's the point. You know the code sucks, the guy who vibecoded it either didn't know or didn't care. That's the added value.
25.
by Levitz 2mo ago
With the ruckus, I thought this would be something that was displayed in Google Earth. I can't grasp how this is an issue at all? There are other 20 services you can use to do this exact same thing.
26.
by Levitz 2mo ago
>This is a nakedly hypocritical stance, but completely understandable from a company-needs-to-make-money standpoint. No, it's perfectly reasonable once you get down to reality. China is not going to care about IP. That's just a
27.
by Levitz 2mo ago
That "massive hack" is supposed to be one of the core features of React.
28.
by Levitz 2mo ago
Because without bigger players, Chinese models don't get anywhere. Playing catch-up is a radically different game.
29.
by Levitz 2mo ago
Because the hegemony-ensuring machine will most certainly have "prevent others from competing for hegemony" as one of the basic tenets.
30.
by Levitz 2mo ago
Suing is absurd as it would get nowhere, since this is China we are talking about. Now, preventing making business in the US based on those products? At this point it's hard to argue against.

More ›