81–90 of 182 posts
Could have sworn the author was a nix(os) user already. I know it’s a meme but what all the problems they’re describing literally is solved by nix. The nix sandbox even catches calls for time for example to replace it with 0 for determinism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, I don’t think so. LLMs are good at a lot of simple tasks, but bad at certain simple tasks. Moravec’s paradox in a new iteration. It applies to humans too. Calculus is “simple” but it takes something like sixteen years to train a human to do it, if all goes well. Meanwhile, most humans think that inverse kinematics is, like, the easiest thing in the world (it’s a super complicated task).
Calculus is definitely the harder task, considering it took a species developing the cognitive capacity for symbolic reasoning for it to show up, whereas any animal can figure out how to position its limbs. Yeah, we figured out how to make CAS programs before inverse kinematics software, but that's because computers were made to solve numerical problems, not to replace the cerebella of chordates.
You’re only evaluating “harder” or “easier” based on the perspective of somebody who has a mammalian brain with millions of years of selective pressure to make it suitable for solving inverse kinematics problems.
The point here is that when we start constructing agents or tools with different architectures to ourselves, it makes sense to reevaluate notions of whether something is ‘hard’ or ‘easy’. LLMs are bad at counting not because counting is hard, but because their architecture makes it hard.
Reading this, I think low level engineering is actually more dependent on specific environments. Hardware also has its own points of change. Usually, when you think at a high level, environmental changes are less significant than you might expect. But low level thinking tends to be tied to specific environments, which is what makes it difficult. The reason low level is hard is that even if the code itself is short, t…
Looks like the formatting ate your asterisks at *(int*)buffer. Use \* to get an asterisk.
So to avoid those energy-hungry LLM companies from scraping your website, you force each browser to compute a lot of hashes in a necessarily energy-hungry loop, creating, at the same time, all the kind of accessibility problems?
1. Allows access in reasonable time/battery use to me on my phone
2. Poses any meaningful challenge to the most compute-resourced organizations on the planet
I wonder how many cumulative hours of human life have been wasted waiting on Anubis.
These seem very reasonable, the workarounds used are natural, and overall the article is not at all congruous with the conclusion in the (clickbait?) title? Compilers literally made your project possible!
> Clang relies on address layout for ordering things I would consider that a bug tbh
And I speak as being generally very critical of cryptos, but here rewarding the website owner with some cents to have access seems fair, and resolves the traditional issues about micro-payments.
So to avoid those energy-hungry LLM companies from scraping your website, you force each browser to compute a lot of hashes in a necessarily energy-hungry loop, creating, at the same time, all the kind of accessibility problems?
I don’t get how people believe there’s a PoW function that both: 1. Allows access in reasonable time/battery use to me on my phone 2. Poses any meaningful challenge to the most compute-resourced organizations on the planet I wonder how many cumulative hours of human life have been wasted waiting on Anubis.
So to avoid those energy-hungry LLM companies from scraping your website, you force each browser to compute a lot of hashes in a necessarily energy-hungry loop, creating, at the same time, all the kind of accessibility problems?
I don’t get how people believe there’s a PoW function that both: 1. Allows access in reasonable time/battery use to me on my phone 2. Poses any meaningful challenge to the most compute-resourced organizations on the planet I wonder how many cumulative hours of human life have been wasted waiting on Anubis.
Do people really do that? -- disable, not just using old browsers with no wasm.
Disabling wasm while keeping js enabled is a configuration i can't understand
> What do you do when the client has WebAssembly disabled? Do people really do that? -- disable, not just using old browsers with no wasm. Disabling wasm while keeping js enabled is a configuration i can't understand