11–20 of 165 posts
So what does its UI look like?
Based on its /log page, it doesn't look like it has one yet. They're just now implementing the implementation language, R'.
They haven't done their due diligence: there's already a well-known language named R: https://www.r-project.org/. The prime isn't sufficient disambiguation.
> RadiantOS treats your computer as an extension of your mind. It’s designed to capture your knowledge, habits, and workflows at the system layer. Data is interlinked like a personal wiki, not scattered across folders. This sounded really interesting... till I read this: > It’s an AI-native operating system. Artificial neural networks are built in and run locally. The OS understands what applications can do, what the…
I also understand that the old BBS way of communicating isn't perfect, but looking into web browsers seems to just be straight up insanity. Surely we can come up with something different now that takes the lessons learned over the past few decades combined with more modern hardware. I don't pretend to know what that would look like, but the idea of being able to fully understand the overall software stack (at least conceptually) is pretty tempting.
> RadiantOS treats your computer as an extension of your mind. It’s designed to capture your knowledge, habits, and workflows at the system layer. Data is interlinked like a personal wiki, not scattered across folders. This sounded really interesting... till I read this: > It’s an AI-native operating system. Artificial neural networks are built in and run locally. The OS understands what applications can do, what the…
There are lots of systems that have tried to do something like the first quote. They're usually referred to as "semantic OSes", since the OS itself manages the capturing of semantic links. I don't think anyone denies the current utility of AI. A big problem of the current OSes is that AI features are clumsily bolted on without proper context. If the entire system is designed from the ground up for AI and the model ru…
I do. "AI" is not trustworthy enough to be anything but "clumsily bolted on without proper context."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Based on its /log page, it doesn't look like it has one yet. They're just now implementing the implementation language, R'.
> They're just now implementing the implementation language, R'. They haven't done their due diligence: there's already a well-known language named R: https://www.r-project.org/ . The prime isn't sufficient disambiguation.
I don't understand why they're particular about writing their own esoteric language. If they want people to buy and engage with it, software has to be the gateway, and that's easier to write in a language people know.
I've programmed for a long time, but always struggled with Assembly and C, so take my views with a grain of salt.
An admirable goal. However putting that next to a bunch of AI slop artwork and this statement...
> One of our goals is to explore how an A.I.-native computer system can enhance the creative process, all while keeping data private.
...is comically out of touch.
The intersection between "I want simple and understandable computing systems" and "I want AI" is basically zero. (Yes, I'm sure some of you exist, my point is that you're combining a slim segment of users who want this approach to tech with another slim segment of users who want AI.)
The image on this page is wild: https://radiant.computer/principles/
Of course, I am intrigued by open architecture. Will they be able to solve graphic card issues though?