parliament32

4 ms·

1.
by parliament32 3mo ago
Why fork at all? Why not just vendor the dependency and slop the changes you want on top of it? You can even pull from upstream down the line for the latest updates. The problem is sloppers really, really want other people to use their code
2.
by parliament32 3mo ago
Well, yes, exactly. And yet nobody but the biggest corp-sponsored projects get anything more than negligible donations. So what does this tell us? These "contributors" are happy to throw money at open source projects as long as th
3.
by parliament32 3mo ago
Add a mechanism to donate tokens towards the maintainers' LLMs for a particular ticket and this whole class of problems will be resolved all at once.
4.
by parliament32 3mo ago
[flagged]
5.
by parliament32 3mo ago
I would kill for an LLM-free platform. Personally I just stopped accepting public contributions entirely. File issues, sure, but no PRs apart from accounts I added who have contributed before the slopageddon started. Maybe the whole web-of-
6.
by parliament32 3mo ago
They're stuck in this idea that somehow they're better at prompting the slop generator than anyone else, therefore they're helpful and people definitely want their output merged in to these various projects. They will have tr
7.
by parliament32 3mo ago
For now. Give it another half year and "I contribute to open source" will carry the same weight as "I donate to charity" ie nobody cares because any idiot can do it. I wonder how long it'll take before "I don&#
8.
by parliament32 3mo ago
They are paying influencers to pretend they use LLMs, and discredit Chinese models: https://www.wired.com/story/super-pac-backed-by-openai-and-p...
9.
by parliament32 3mo ago
I love how even the "demo build" doesn't work. https://fablepool.com/projects/7 Rather, it did work at milestone 14, but then regressed at milestone 15, where it changed the link from a wikimedia image t
10.
by parliament32 3mo ago
Fun schemes like this are all just lipstick on the pig of "asking nicely", unfortunately -- it's just a more creative iteration of "Simon says". It'll improve the probabilities, sure, but you can't guarant
11.
by parliament32 3mo ago
> separating data from instructions There's been a lot of talk about this (for years, honestly), but it all stems from a fundamental nonunderstanding of how LLMs work. There is no distinction for an LLM; "instructions" are
12.
RoguePlanet: Windows 0-day privilege escalation(github.com)
6 points by parliament32 3mo ago|2 comments
13.
by parliament32 3mo ago
The hilarious part is that spam actually makes money, while slop does not. There's no reason to tire out if it's profitable, right? Meanwhile.. have you ever paid for a vibe-coded anything? Why would you, when you (along with ever
14.
by parliament32 3mo ago
Personally, they're going wayyy too hard on the AI stuff. I just want an interface to git and maybe an issue tracker.
15.
by parliament32 3mo ago
Just goes to show how much demand there is. HN really needs a containment board.
16.
by parliament32 3mo ago
Thank you for (re)writing this in your own voice. Despite how much effort might be put into methodology, data collection, etc.. reading slop is unbearable, full stop. It's not intentional, but I have almost a nauseated reaction when th
17.
by parliament32 3mo ago
What a pleasant surprise. I was positive S&P would get strongarmed into the bamboozle like Nasdaq but it seems they have a bit more integrity. Good for them.
18.
by parliament32 4mo ago
> the unsolicited summaries and auto replies are a means of artificially inflating the usage metrics for the language model features This, I think, is the part that irks me the most. Companies adding token-usage-KPIs for engineering is o
19.
by parliament32 4mo ago
Step 1: Require companies to submit product for "review" Step 2: Complain about how the OSS/Chinese/whatever models are doing releases without approval Step 3: Prohibit, because "safety" and "financial ris
20.
by parliament32 4mo ago
Spicy. Look, I think you're missing my point a little bit. Let's simplify it to risk, since that's what kicked off this conversation. Your pension or whatever holds an ETF that (soon) contains some SpaceX shares. You buy a pu
21.
by parliament32 4mo ago
The ETF that seemingly arbitrarily changes its rules? In such a short time frame too? This change is going proposal to implementation in.. what, two weeks total? I don't know about you but I don't keep up on this stuff unless it h
22.
by parliament32 4mo ago
Even with trading news, slop generators are way, way too slow to be useful.
23.
by parliament32 4mo ago
...which is why we have GAAP-recognized metrics, right? To prevent fudge-ability? And those metrics.. they're deliberately not publishing? Makes you think.
24.
by parliament32 4mo ago
Because they're long-term, yes. It'll really come down to how much you're willing to pay for monthly Elon-shenanigans-insurance. I'm very interested in seeing how the market prices these options after the IPO.
25.
by parliament32 4mo ago
Yeah you're not wrong. I didn't think about it that way because you can't really break something out of an ETF basket, and you also don't control the ETF basket, but if you think those risks are minimal it's probabl
26.
by parliament32 4mo ago
Shorts have unlimited risk. Buying a put is risk-defined and probably a better strategy.
27.
by parliament32 4mo ago
> some sort of trade that would eliminate my exposure to SpaceX I think it's less complicated than you'd think.. just buy LEAPS puts proportional to your exposure.
28.
by parliament32 4mo ago
Is it specializing though? If both you and them have built your business on the latest Opus.. where is the specialization? "From the ground up" used to be a moat, but if the LLM marketing materials are to be believed, Joe Lunchbox
29.
by parliament32 4mo ago
I have no doubt there are a handful of positive examples when we ignore the tens of thousands of failed companies along these lines. I have no problem with money-furnaces trading publicly. If people want to invest in those, fantastic, power
30.
by parliament32 4mo ago
This is why I roll my eyes when the slop apologists insist that having a test suite is a sufficient guard against bad LLM code.

More ›