DarkNova6

5 ms·

31.
by DarkNova6 3mo ago
Right? It strikes me that the vast majority of people complaining genuinely don't understand the difference between law and code, content and art or can think of anything beyond what they are facing in day to day work realities.
32.
by DarkNova6 3mo ago
This being downvoted speaks saddens my heart... and proves the exact intent of the message.
33.
by DarkNova6 3mo ago
Thanks, now I don't need to even read the article!
34.
by DarkNova6 3mo ago
You are not wrong, but here's the catch: "Even I - with all my years of experience and knowledge - fell into the trap of hallucinations. I summarised reports using AI tools and worked from those summaries, trusting they were accur
35.
by DarkNova6 3mo ago
I'd argue that if a satire or parody is strong enough having a small watermark will not detract from its statement.
36.
by DarkNova6 3mo ago
You completely disregard practical implications. Can you manually create images that were done via AI? Of course you can. Can you create AI fake content and misinformation as easily with human labor as you can with AI? No. Understanding thi
37.
by DarkNova6 3mo ago
If anything this an argument _for_ clearly labelling manipulated photos and AI generated depiction of supposedly real life events.
38.
by DarkNova6 3mo ago
You will have to tell me how "labelling machine additions" is applicable at all as an example here. Unless your argument boils down to "computer doing things does not require labelling".
39.
by DarkNova6 3mo ago
So what are journalistic texts if not docs? At this point, an LLM is just another evolution from the typewriter. You are still responsible for your work. What is important are the semantics and statements of the text. Less so how the exact
40.
by DarkNova6 3mo ago
More authentic because of what, a missing watermark? It still has 2 positive outcomes: 1: It gives legal leverage against vectors of misinformation. Misinformation is tricky to combat legally and this is a first obvious measure that can be
41.
by DarkNova6 3mo ago
I don't see how these are contradictory. The battle for reality will only worsen and you likely need multiple failsaves.
42.
by DarkNova6 3mo ago
The non thinking ones have voting power too and they will burn this shithole down because they think some powerful people in nice suits act on good faith and should be given all the decisionmaking and resources. This way of thinking is a ve
43.
by DarkNova6 3mo ago
There's creativity and there's the creative process. I like to dictate documentation in long form monologue, and then give instructions how to structure it. Then I give it a final pass with manual adjustments and the end-result is
44.
by DarkNova6 3mo ago
An obvious start would be that any such technology needs to have its own clearly visible watermark and removing it constitutes a crime.
45.
by DarkNova6 3mo ago
I'm surprised by the sentiment. With enough money you can already buy attention and presence. Now you can even facilitate a fake discourse to claim legitimacy and steer manipulation into entirely new realms. If this is not counteracted
46.
by DarkNova6 3mo ago
> It won't work. Maybe. But the rest of your post doesn't have anything to back this up. > I'm also curious, what about AI assisted media? If a company writes a full article, then uses AI to edit it a bit, does that nee
47.
by DarkNova6 3mo ago
Nihilism is the path to death and destruction. Thinking this will makes you powerless and cedes control with those who have the most resources. It's easy to take yourself out of this equation, but it only makes everything worse. The tr
48.
by DarkNova6 3mo ago
Because?
49.
by DarkNova6 3mo ago
I totally get that. Java is my favorite language for exactly that reason. They are a deliberate "late mover language" and adopt what other languages have proven right. But looking at how adamant Go used to be on the whole "No
50.
by DarkNova6 3mo ago
Step by step, Go is now learning the hard lessons every other language has learned over the last 20 years. The fact that despite their best efforts, their propositions look like everone else is a surprisingly refreshing affirmation of statu
51.
by DarkNova6 3mo ago
Indeed. At this point you’d need to bring the size of the string into the type system (C++ Templates we meet again!) but then you look at a solution worse than the problem…
52.
by DarkNova6 3mo ago
The Java way was always to let library designers decide how a type is used. I personally think this is the sensible one.
53.
by DarkNova6 3mo ago
I think it really highlights how important it was to have atomicity and integrity by default because even here people will handwave away any such concerns as if they don’t exist.
54.
by DarkNova6 3mo ago
Your comment makes no sense to me, but I must grant that there is a lot of bad reporting about Valhalla and I’ve been following the mailing lists for well over 7 years now. Nothing, absolutely nothing about the design is a compromise that w
55.
by DarkNova6 3mo ago
Fortunately, there are plenty of mature alternatives to Spring these days.
56.
by DarkNova6 3mo ago
What I love the most is the sheer amount of thought and philosophy put into Valhalla. It transcends the binary understanding of object vs value and actually defines 4 distinct buckets: 1: Classical Object 2: Object without identity 3: Atomi
57.
by DarkNova6 3mo ago
From what I gathered the core problem is flattenability. It is backed by a dynamic array and you would need real templating to remove the indirection.
58.
by DarkNova6 3mo ago
You can deliberately opt out of it though and for such a mainstream language such as Java, this just might be the sane choice.
59.
by DarkNova6 3mo ago
Java has the mantra of "Integrity by default" which means you can tear into non-integral value type with a flag. This is the strength of Valhalla. Instead of a binary object/value choice you have different levels of semantic
60.
by DarkNova6 3mo ago
It's about the semantic guarantees because you don't want to introduce a parallel programming bug just because you added a field to a type. Tearability is opt in and if you are serious about performance you will make the correct c

More ›