21–30 of 57 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think they literally coined and defined the term over 25 years ago.
That's not how it works. They're entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own dictionary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not how it works. They're entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own dictionary.
So if you were to write that you are not in the habit of stealing from children, you might have your own idiosyncratic definition of "steal" or "child"?
Meanwhile, if anyone is entitled to the distinction of having "coined" the "fundamentally novel" phrase, it's a guy named Robert Steele who publicized the term "open source intelligence" in 1990 and organized the First International Symposium on Open Source Solutions in 1992.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So if you were to write that you are not in the habit of stealing from children, you might have your own idiosyncratic definition of "steal" or "child"?
Well, I certainly can't argue with that, um... logic. Meanwhile, if anyone is entitled to the distinction of having "coined" the "fundamentally novel" phrase, it's a guy named Robert Steele who publicized the term "open source intelligence" in 1990 and organized the First International Symposium on Open Source Solutions in 1992.
Title says "open source", but the Business Source License (BSL) is not an Open Source Initiative (OSI) approved open-source license.
DHH also claims he is super open source when in reality he already soul-sent to the big tech bros:
https://world.hey.com/dhh/the-o-saasy-license-336c5c8f
We also had this recently with arduino. I don't understand why companies try to get that way. To me it is not an open source licence - it is a closed source business licence. Just with different names.
Maybe I was doing it wrong. The question is: how do you prevent the AI from falling into a corrupt state from which it cannot get out?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Open source has an accepted and well understood meaning to developers; when people use the term to mean something other than that, it is 100% of the time for exploitative purposes, and they know they are being disingenuous.
I've used the term for 25+ years to describe my own source-included free software projects, and I'll thank you (and OSI) for not policing my language. No trademark? No standing. Choose other crusades.
I tried making something similar a while ago, and the main problem was that long-term memory makes it easy to move the AI into a bad state where it overfixates on something (context poisoning), or decides to refuse talking to me completely. So in the end, I added a command that wipes out all memory, and ended up using it all the time. Maybe I was doing it wrong. The question is: how do you prevent the AI from falling…
When a user sends a message I: generate a vector of the user message -> pull in semantically similar memories -> filter and rank them -> then send an API call with the memories from the last turn that were 'pinned' plus the top 10 memories just surfaced. the first API call's job is to intelligently pick the actual worthwhile memories and 'pin' them till the next turn -> do the main LLM call with an up-to-date and thinned list of memories.
Reading the prompt itself that the analysis model carries is probably easier than listening to my abstract description: https://github.com/taylorsatula/mira-OSS/blob/main/config/pr...
I can't say with confidence that this is ~why~ I don't run into the model getting super flustered and crashing out though I'm familiar with what you're talking about.
Title says "open source", but the Business Source License (BSL) is not an Open Source Initiative (OSI) approved open-source license.
I see this more and more used. It seems companies want to fake stuff now, aka claiming to be open source when they are not. DHH also claims he is super open source when in reality he already soul-sent to the big tech bros: https://world.hey.com/dhh/the-o-saasy-license-336c5c8f We also had this recently with arduino. I don't understand why companies try to get that way. To me it is not an open source licence - it is a…
I liked BSL because the code ~was~ proprietary for a time so someone couldn't duplicate my software I've worked so hard on, paywall it, and put me out of business. I'm a one-man development operation and a strong gust of wind could blow me over. I liked BSL because it naturally decayed into a permissive open source license automatically after a timeout. I'd get a head start but users could still use it and modify it from day one as long as they didn't charge money for it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, I certainly can't argue with that, um... logic. Meanwhile, if anyone is entitled to the distinction of having "coined" the "fundamentally novel" phrase, it's a guy named Robert Steele who publicized the term "open source intelligence" in 1990 and organized the First International Symposium on Open Source Solutions in 1992.
The phrase was first applied to software by the drafters of the Open Source Definition.
The author of the project in this article is perfectly within their rights to use the term, and the rest of us know very well what they mean by it.