Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Adafruit receives demand letter from Fenwick legal counsel on behalf of Flux.ai

blog.adafruit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 300 posts

Re: Adafruit receives demand letter from Fenwick legal counsel on behalf of Flux.ai

#141

Post by elevation »

reactordev wrote: post #74
pftburger wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, and it’s terrible Not only did it burn a 100$ failing but it did so in a very untransparent way. I bought a 20 dollar plan but they snuck a 100$ billed usage into the billing agreements next thing I know the agent as used the quote going in circles and my card is billed.

We need outcome based billing... I don't want to pay for a service that doesn't deliver.

> We need outcome based billing... I don't want to pay for a service that doesn't deliver.

You can already do this: hire a consultancy to build you a working deliverable for a fixed price. They will be incentivized to prompt their tools well and to avoid tools that are consistently pathological.

Re: Adafruit receives demand letter from Fenwick legal counsel on behalf of Flux.ai

#142

Post by OrangeMusic »

kid64 wrote: post #109
xd1936 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nor f.lux, the warm light software that got Sherlocked by every major OS. https://justgetflux.com/

Nor the Flux Capacitor from Back to the Future.

Nor the famed Good Will Hunting and Argo actor and director, Ben Afflux

Re: Adafruit receives demand letter from Fenwick legal counsel on behalf of Flux.ai

#143

Post by Brian_K_White »

sgc wrote: post #98
subscribed wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My question wasn't "how to handle that better". I hope it's okay to point it out :) I would also argue it's not "often" the case someone asking the obvious question seemingly answered in the article had actually read it. It happens, surely, but it's not a rule of thumb. That's too meta for a thread here anyways, I think.

It's an in-actionable "question" / comment. The rule does not claim one thing is better than the other. One is easily enforceable, the other is indemonstrable. If the point of this exchange is to better understand and use HN, the reason is because it is not hard to be constructive instead of throwing out non sequiturs. And I didn't say it's '"often" the case someone asking the obvious question seemingly answered in t…

I'd rather read "it's in the article you didn't read" than pretty much anything else.

The ideal case of course is that there are only legit questions and discussion from people who actually read what they are talking about. If they miss something that's fine as long as it's the honest exception. But this is not a thing that exists or can exist, so it doesn't count. It's not actually available to be a "What I'd like the most."

The next-most ideal case is when someone talks about something they didn't read, that no one else responds at all. The noise is the minimum possible noise from the original source and it just gets ignored. This aslo is not a real thing, and so not up for consideration.

What's left is some flavore of "noise". This is not avoidable. it will exist and the only choices are what form and flavor it takes.

I think it is most conductive for everyone, the poster, the bystanders, everyone, including people who don't like "noise", is the obvious and natural response. That it's the obvious and natural response for a reason.

Low value and snark may be true but it's irrelevant. It's still the best most productive reaction. (Within reason, 500 of the same response to one comment isn't very interesting reading, but multiple of the same agreeing response does serve a purpose which serves us all.)

That's what I mean by "I'd rather read that than almost anything else."

There are are no better options that actually exist.

As for the hall monitor aspect, telling people they shouldn't say the obvious most applicable thing is also hall monitor.

All in all, I just find the argument sorta valid but weak.

Re: Adafruit receives demand letter from Fenwick legal counsel on behalf of Flux.ai

#144

Post by ACCount37 »

doubled112 wrote: post #53
pjc50 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are some AI-driven autorouters out there now. Placement is probably the big issue that needs to be solved now. Interesting that within an IC this is basically "solved", or at least properly automated with classical numeric techniques such as simulated annealing. I would have thought there's a big opportunity in a mixed-technique approach, where you use AI to extract unstructured data from datasheets and then…

> mixed-technique approach I think my biggest annoyance with the way we rolled out AI is that nobody seemed to want to use it to augment already working solutions. Just throw everything out and have an LLM do it instead.

Way too much engineering effort to make something that might get leapfrogged by the next gen LLM.

It's a tantalizing thing, but far too treacherous to actually go for it, most of the time.

Re: Adafruit receives demand letter from Fenwick legal counsel on behalf of Flux.ai

#145

Post by wat10000 »

xoa wrote: post #114
wat10000 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only if the problem is declared to be whatever it is that spell checkers solve. As the classic joke goes, "Me spell chucker work grate. Need grandma chicken."

> Only if the problem is declared to be whatever it is that spell checkers solve. The problem being misspelling, hence, "spell checker". Like, this seems pretty straightforward? Grammar checking if you cannot use the language properly is a pretty different problem space, and indeed has long existed and is exposed as a separate thing. And not just in fancy word processors either, if you go to something as simple as ma…

It's not clear whether using "grate" instead of "great" is a grammar mistake or a spelling mistake. I'd argue it's a spelling mistake. The intent was not "my spell checker works a frame of metal bars," it was "my spell checker works well." It just so happens that the misspelled word matches a different word.

An example of a sentence like this with correct spelling but bad grammar would be "my spell checker works good." All of the words are what they're meant to be, but the last word is not the correct part of speech.=

But because computers are good at detecting "this doesn't match any known word" and bad at detecting "this matches a word but isn't the word you meant to use here," we've redefined "spell checking" to mean "find words that don't match any known word."

Your point about the joke is not correct. If I put my comment into ChatGPT and ask for a grammar check, it recognizes that it's a joke with deliberately bad grammar and suggests leaving it alone. If I put my comment into a grammar checker, it flags multiple errors in the joke. And "deterministic meaning-preserving ones"? Traditional spell/grammar checkers may be deterministic, but at no point have they ever been guaranteed to preserve meaning, or even been particularly good at it.

Re: Adafruit receives demand letter from Fenwick legal counsel on behalf of Flux.ai

#146

Post by bee_rider »

pjc50 wrote: post #115
moron4hire wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gambling addicts make all kinds of post-hoc rationalizations for why they are actually up, if you think about it. "Well, if you consider my entertainment, I'm actually up." "Well, if you think of all the drinks I got comped, I'm actually up." Even worse are the ones who talk about runs, "I was up $10,000 at one point." Nevermind they gave it all back and another $20k chasing that first $10k. At the end of the day, if…

> If they can use the AI and get to a point that they can submit a PR that they themselves understand, then technically speaking, what do I care? This is where my employer has ended up after extremely cautious AI adoption: _must_ be reviewed by a human, and the human whose name is on the gerrit review is responsible for the quality of the work. For some reason the OpenAI dashboard shows me how much money the company…

That doesn’t seem “extremely cautious,” it seems… exactly the right amount of cautious. “A computer can never be held accountable” and all that.

Re: Adafruit receives demand letter from Fenwick legal counsel on behalf of Flux.ai

#147

Post by intrasight »

ACCount37 wrote: post #144
doubled112 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> mixed-technique approach I think my biggest annoyance with the way we rolled out AI is that nobody seemed to want to use it to augment already working solutions. Just throw everything out and have an LLM do it instead.

Way too much engineering effort to make something that might get leapfrogged by the next gen LLM. It's a tantalizing thing, but far too treacherous to actually go for it, most of the time.

There are many domains where a hybrid of numeric and AI approaches would make sense. For example in those domains where there's already a rich practice of numeric tools such as with IC layout.

Re: Adafruit receives demand letter from Fenwick legal counsel on behalf of Flux.ai

#148

Post by intrasight »

trollbridge wrote: post #70
kangalioo wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would be a better way to incorporate AI as a spell checker? In comparison to non-AI traditional tools, AI has the advantage of "understanding" the text, reducing the number of "stupid" mis-corrections. And its spelling correctness is usually already impeccable, so what is there to gain by interfacing it with traditional solutions, and how can it be achieved?

AI can’t really spell check without risking changing the meaning of sentences. Spell checking was a solved problem before this.

If it's a solved problem, then why does my iPhone suck at it?

Re: Adafruit receives demand letter from Fenwick legal counsel on behalf of Flux.ai

#149

Post by xoa »

wat10000 wrote: post #145
xoa wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Only if the problem is declared to be whatever it is that spell checkers solve. The problem being misspelling, hence, "spell checker". Like, this seems pretty straightforward? Grammar checking if you cannot use the language properly is a pretty different problem space, and indeed has long existed and is exposed as a separate thing. And not just in fancy word processors either, if you go to something as simple as ma…

It's not clear whether using "grate" instead of "great" is a grammar mistake or a spelling mistake. I'd argue it's a spelling mistake. The intent was not "my spell checker works a frame of metal bars," it was "my spell checker works well." It just so happens that the misspelled word matches a different word. An example of a sentence like this with correct spelling but bad grammar would be "my spell checker works good…

>It's not clear whether using "grate" instead of "great" is a grammar mistake or a spelling mistake.

It actually is clear, because words have meaning. "Spelling" refers specifically to the order of letters forming a given word [0, 1]. The proper use of words with a sentence, the "the study of the classes of words, their inflections, and their functions and relations in the sentence" [2] is the definition of "grammar"!

>I'd argue it's a spelling mistake.

Perhaps so, you're welcome to invent your own special snowflake definitions for words without much relation to decades/centuries of usage. It's a free country. But I would and will argue you are incorrect to do so and then expect to communicate with other humans.

----

0: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spell

1: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/spell

2: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/grammar

Re: Adafruit receives demand letter from Fenwick legal counsel on behalf of Flux.ai

#150

Post by dghlsakjg »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #102

> Adafruit accessed only information that Flux’s own systems made publicly available through a server misconfiguration Does anyone have some more context about what happened here? An uncharitable analogy might be that I misconfigured my front door by not locking it, which doesn't give someone the right to walk in and look around - but I have no idea what Adafruit is specifically being accused of doing.

what about if I knock on the door (send an http request), and someone comes to it and hands me a bunch of documents (sends an http response with data).
Post reply on HN