don’t bother engaging w anything else.

Because it’s a waste of time engaging when the chances are very high that any well-reasoned counterpoint will simply get removed.

Yeah, but their common origin is a little far back. Are you equally surprised that fascist and fajita have the same root?

It’s also that writing complex 3-dimensional characters is hard. It’s much simpler to write a straightforward “good guy” or “bad guy” than it is a nuanced character who does some good things and some bad things all connected to core motivations that drive their reasoning.

He is actually British. Apart from that, agree with the rest. Especially D.

As someone physically capable of playing games with the blinky shiny lights, they aren’t all they’re cracked up to be. My top two games atm are Manor Lords and MENACE, both of which should be perfectly accessible to you.

I’m very happy to buy games from small indie developers. They absolutely need the money to survive, and I enjoy their work.

Just out of interest, what do you make of this situation in my country? Roma people make up less than 5% of the population of the country. They are heavily discriminated against. The majority of the population are racist against them. By your logic, we should ignore and maybe even embrace the racism to steer the conversation back to economic issues?

From your comment history, it looks like you’re an American leftist. Maybe don’t throw rocks at allies? You’re going to need all the help you can get with your current government structure.

I think you may be misunderstanding the situation. He’s telling AI critics to stop complaining or fork. If that happens, the main branch will still have AI submissions, and the fork will be the AI-free one.

Important to note: Torvalds is not an LLM evangelist, nor does he just accept AI slop uncritically. The official policy is that LLM written/assisted code is fine, but the quality must hit the bar expected of Linux kernel submissions, and the submitter takes full responsibility for the code correctness whether they personally wrote it or not. Just submitting LLM code with no verification or tests is a great way of getting banned from submitting pull requests and getting a very angry email from Linus.

The point is I don’t think LLMs normally use copyrighted code in a way that would hurt open source projects.

I don’t know. I’m not a lawyer, and copyright for code was a hot mess even before LLMs got involved. With how many opportunistic copyright/patent trolls there are and how easily convinced judges have been in the past, it could go either way.

Lol, so how do humans code in comparison?

The good programmers normally code by breaking down the problem into constituent parts and logically working through the problem, step by step. What differentiates this from tokenization is that instead of just looking for code that is similar for a similar problem, programmers can usually understand the effects of each line of code, visualize what the state of each variable will be in that step (or dump out the variables to look directly if unsure), and then move on to the next step. This logical problem-solving approach is fundamentally different from a tokenization+noise looking for a similar-looking problem approach. For one thing, you can solve problems that haven’t been solved before.

That would rely on the contact of that user using the admin’s public key. In most systems I’ve seen that’d result in a big flashing warning that the user’s key has been changed. So, dangerous for people contacting you for the first time, much more obvious if the 2 users have been talking before that point.

Other people have raised the much more interesting and potentially dangerous point that it’s very difficult in this context to make sure that a particular public key corresponds with a particular user. I’m way more used to sysadmin style issues where you have a small number of known keypairs, while in this context it’s a large number of mostly unknown keypairs, so you need some way of confirming that. I’m starting to understand why this is a much thornier issue than it appears on the surface.

LLMs don’t “create”. Under the hood, they’re tokenizing the queries, looking for “clouds” of tokens that are similar to the query, then returning a sequence of tokens (with some random noise thrown in) that match what their training data says the answer should be.

In short: all LLM code is an amalgamation of their training data by definition. If there’s nothing similar in there, it’s literally not possible for it to be part of any response.

How much do you know about cryptography?

I’d describe myself as a relatively knowledgeable layman. Essentially I know enough to use it effectively in a sysadmin/dbadmin capacity, but not got a good grasp of the underlying math.

This was my earliest blog post on the topic, if you want a place to start.

Thank you, I’ll take you up on that.

As long as the admin doesn’t possess the private key, that solution still prevents the latter issue. If the admin swaps out your public key for one they control, they could technically impersonate you and read messages after the swap, but not read any messages from before. The user would be unable to use E2EE as soon as the key is swapped, so the only real issue here is impersonation.

An admin could theoretically take over a user’s account today, so there’s not really a new vulnerability here. And with E2EE, there’d be a big clue about something funky happening with the public key changing.

EDIT: Oh.

These aren’t encapsulation keys (a.k.a., asymmetric or “public key encryption” keys). Encapsulation keys belong to the MLS KeyPackages, which are NOT planned to ever be logged in a key transparency system. The KeyPackages will be signed by the keypair whose public component is stored, however.

That seems… strange? Not sure why that approach was chosen.

Or, far more likely, installed some devious listening device somewhere that records and occasionally phones home.

deleted by creator

Maybe it was a mistake to try and use natural language for this kind of job, it’s too fuzzy and interpretable. Maybe we need a new language, one with a much stricter syntax and no room for interpretation. If you make it simple enough, and use some natural language for important keywords, shouldn’t be too difficult to learn.

We could call it “language for programming” or something like that.

Eh, who am I kidding, that’ll never catch on.

The problem is you don’t decide when your camera is running, Meta does. Even if you’re not doing the creepy shit that other people are doing, it’s still somewhat invasive to everyone you look at.

Not if you have pets. You’ll need a screen to stop hair getting into the case if you have cats/dogs.

Personally I use LibreOffice, it’s very solid.