Not the OC, but I’ve done something similar and it wasn’t permanent but it was effective short-term after listening. My idea was to match the pitch, turn up the volume until it was fairly loud, then shut off the sound, and when I did that the pitch was gone or greatly diminished for about a day.

There doesn’t need to be a conspiracy born in smokey rooms for there to be a malignant culture of greed and moral bankruptcy. And it’s possible for one group or class to consolidate enough power to constitute an unfair advantage.

“I’m just doing what the market rewards” and “if I don’t, the next guy will” are the 21st century billionaire’s “I was just following orders.” It creates a race to the bottom.

If it were true

I’m just waiting for 0.13 so I can have Helix-like multicursor in Nvim, then I’ll never touch my config again.

I think I’m angry b/c I’m unsure but so many people are claiming to be sure without sufficient evidence.

You can choose to be unsure.

It’s funny, I’m in a similar boat (omarchy at home, macOS at work) and recently spent a lot of time working out a system with SIP-enabled yabai for window management, kanata for the super key and other QMK-style tap-hold-chord mapping, and hammerspoon to fill in the space management commands for which yabai needs SIP disabled.

If this had existed last week, I’d have saved a few hours, but it was a kinda fun few hours and now it’s all mine. Glad to know I’m not the only one on this particular quixotic quest.

Sounds like a cool project as well, what were your thoughts about disabling SIP? Would be curious to hear how omacosy compares to your setup. What you have similar what you did different.

Legitimately curious, are you using the 1.4 canary release in a production environment?

Not sure how well “new ambitious software” and “____ clone” go together there.

Seems like even most critics would agree LLMs are capable of producing impressive-for-the-timescale clones of existing software, but is that valuable?

I think a majority of my friends are teachers and this could not be further opposite their sentiments. They feel strongly that it’s dishonest, nearly akin to plagiarism to use AI output in lesson plans. They don’t use it for grading or data analysis b/c of privacy concerns. They mostly complain that the kids are using it for homework, which makes it hard to grade both because it’s too uniform and because there’s no good faith effort going into the work which makes reading it unrewarding. And the consensus is that test scores are down b/c they’re offloading normal course work to AI. It’s basically the bane of their existence.

The idea that it’s actually better for diversity feels like a wild reach, almost a canned talking point.

>The idea that it’s actually better for diversity feels like a wild reach, almost a canned talking point.

lol

She's got a photo of a new student from Cameroon pointing at a little laminated cartoon character that she hung on the bulletin board outside of her room.

It's a very effective way to make new students from far flung regions of the world feel seen.

How do you get to plagiarism from lesson plans? Or that it's 'dishonest' to use a tool to create them?

Genuinely not understanding the chain of reasoning there, unless you start from "Everything generated by AI is plagiarism by definition", which is objectively wrong and not based on how LLMs actually work.

Kids using it for homework is a different issue, and I would agree that's not good.

> tons of teachers use LLMs to make material

How do you say this with such confidence and then, in the very next sentence, admit that all you have is anecdata which you don't even bother to cite?

I think the connection is pretty clear: people have always wanted to know things without having to learn them.

I think the underlying motivation may be straw manned or misrepresented as only that.

Do you use AI? Do you build anything with it technically? I do.

I don't want to know things without learning them, I want to produce things of value and that solve important problems, and if I can do that rather than the alternative (not do it, because of competing focuses, limited time and energy, etc) I would go with the option of using AI to do so. People in religious study or having other pursuits, surviving at a time when this book came out, at least some of them, could very likely be thinking the same. It feels disingenuous to emphasize the motivation as "knowing things without having to learn them"

>I don't want to know things without learning them

I lives in this world, but we live in a society. While you may diligently learn, there will be 10+ more that won't and will use the AI like an oracle. It then comes up how much damage will become of this.

And we're not even in the era of rampant agentic AI spreading itself around and the fun and neat problems that will cause.

What's the necessary thing here that people need to "learn" to prevent the hypothetical AI damage scenario you are talking about?

Eh, well, stop building AI.

We're not going to do that, so it's pretty much unavoidable.

If I had to make a "most probable guess" of what the future looks like, we'll have some kind of AI mess caused that will cost billion of dollars. This will get governments up in a tizzy about their dangers, while still being hopelessly addicted to them in military and tracking their citizens. Most people think that governments will attack the models being built, but I don't think so, they want powerful models mostly for themselves. So they'll go after the next best thing. Hardware. What exactly that looks like, I'm not sure, but the big clusters of the machines will have to be registered and licensed. Likely the models will have to be encoded to run on particular hardware and getting caught with an unencoded model would be considered an illegal munition, like we did with cryptography in the past.

Am I hearing this right:

- people will use AI bad

- because people will use AI bad, stop building it

That's what Google is for.

"There is no Royal Road to Geometry".

“I admire the elegance of your method of computation; it must be nice to ride through these fields upon the horse of true mathematics while the like of us have to make our way laboriously on foot.”

-- Einstein admiring Levi-Civita's mastery of differential geometry.