WCSTombs

4 ms·

1.
by WCSTombs 6d ago
It's very hit or miss. Abylight Studios (Super Hydorah, Cursed Castilla) seems to do them pretty well, but then I've seen some that left me wondering how they ever made it past QC. (I won't name them because it's been a
2.
by WCSTombs 6d ago
While I pretty much agree with what's being said here, and I certainly agree with the conclusion, I disagree with this point of view: > It follows, Sartre argues, that the act of writing, as a means to convey a thought to a reader,
3.
by WCSTombs 6d ago
That is not what I said at all. For research whose ostensible purpose is to increase human understanding, the absolutely bare minimum we could ask for is for the authors to understand their own work well enough to write their research paper
4.
by WCSTombs 7d ago
This is the journal's policy on LLM use by authors [1]: > LLMs may be used as general-purpose assistive tools. Whichever tools are used, authors are fully responsible for content on which they are listed as (co-) authors. This incl
5.
by WCSTombs 8d ago
Apparently I'm a bit slow today, because my brain started completing the headline as "Diplodocus, Long Thought Extinct, ..." before my eyes could finish reading it. > The animal’s fossilized remains — 14 well-preserved tai
6.
by WCSTombs 10d ago
Please just write in your own words, and don't filter your writing through AI. Doing the latter will make you a worse writer.
7.
by WCSTombs 12d ago
It's not unheard of, like when the South Korean government lost a bunch of its data in a data center fire. Don't have the only copy of your data in a data center, and you won't have to worry about such a thing happening to yo
8.
by WCSTombs 13d ago
It's a clumsily made point, but I think the gist is that the letter asks AI to align to a certain ideal vision of the field of math, that the math community itself is not well aligned to. I don't think the article makes this point
9.
by WCSTombs 15d ago
(2025).
10.
by WCSTombs 15d ago
If it primarily targets infinite scrolling and autoplaying videos, those are straight-up dark patterns, and having less of them is good in my opinion. That said, I have no idea how likely any of this is to withstand the inevitable lawsuits.
11.
by WCSTombs 16d ago
(2025). This is by far the most perplexing part of this article for me: > People at Git has started to work on a proposal to make the Rust programming language mandatory. I don't like Rust and, above all, I don't like its comm
12.
by WCSTombs 18d ago
Okay, but I fail to see how this eventuality results in the end of ads. Owners of websites, at least the popular ones, won't stop running ads just because they don't strictly need to. We've seen this play out repeatedly with
13.
by WCSTombs 19d ago
Please don't filter your writing through AI or use it to revise your writing. Learn to write well in your own words. Leaning on AI will make you a worse writer, not a better one. Revision is an integral part of the writing process. I w
14.
by WCSTombs 19d ago
> I love building startups, and they love writing code. For me, building projects is a way to make money. For them, programming is art. At its very high points programming approaches art, but programming is primarily problem solving, w
15.
by WCSTombs 19d ago
I think you're describing the the Diátaxis framework [1], which would further split your (1) into fully guided tutorials and discursive explanations. [1]: https://diataxis.fr/
16.
by WCSTombs 19d ago
This came up before (same topic, different article): https://mostlyobvio.us/2026/02/responsive-code-formatting/ I'll also paraphrase what I said then: I like the idea in principle, but there's a fun
17.
by WCSTombs 19d ago
I agree that there can be a tendency to conflate the two things: how advanced the technology is, and how aesthetically pleasing what it produces is. It's also important to remember that we're not obligated to like something just b
18.
by WCSTombs 19d ago
A lot of the stuff you wrote about is not what most of us are talking about when we call it intellectual catfishing or say your intellectual fly is open. For example, I have few problems with people using LLMs in private for purely personal
19.
by WCSTombs 19d ago
I agree with the sentiment with a small caveat, since IMO good writers don't write the way that they talk. The very simple reason is that you can revise your writing but not your talking. But yeah, I completely agree that using an LLM
20.
by WCSTombs 20d ago
This is meant as a criticism of the interview rather than a defense of the AI company, but you have to weigh the "brutal candidness" of the interview against the tendency of the LLM to agree with the prompter. A lot of the questio
21.
by WCSTombs 21d ago
Knuth didn't write SICP, it's by Abelson, Sussman, and Sussman.
22.
by WCSTombs 23d ago
The creator of Omarchy is a pretty controversial figure because of culture war stuff and also a prominent software industry entrepreneur, so it intersects those two other spheres to give it more prominence than it would have otherwise. Pers
23.
by WCSTombs 23d ago
Yeah, it's the speed-running homework and unchecked potential for misinformation that are really problematic. I agree that if it was only a more efficient and accessible repository of information, it wouldn't be nearly as bad, and
24.
by WCSTombs 23d ago
If you overly rely on the computer assistance during the learning stage, there are fundamental principles you won't get a firm grasp on, and then you'll be at a disadvantage if you need it later. As someone who did use calculus af
25.
by WCSTombs 24d ago
Here's another (non-paywalled) source for this news: https://abcnews.com/Technology/new-york-city-public-schools-... The ban goes through eighth grade, and in high school apparently there's a specific AI lite
26.
by WCSTombs 27d ago
I recall the Linux kernel uses "Assisted-by" lines or something like that, which sounds about right.
27.
by WCSTombs 27d ago
> In my view, adding an LLM as co-author gives you a way for you to shirk responsibility for mistakes – even if a little bit. You can say, oops sorry this happened because it did its thing and it was not careful. And that is exactly the
28.
by WCSTombs 29d ago
> Its final speed didn’t just break the sound barrier. It soared well over the 767 mph threshold at a staggering 776 mph. Was Popular Science always this bad? Anyway, this looks like quite a feat of engineering. Hats off!
29.
by WCSTombs 29d ago
I'm a little confused. Is this independent research, an expository piece on the state of the art, or something else entirely? The title sounds like an expository piece, but the document itself looks more like "something else"
30.
by WCSTombs 29d ago
While I have a distaste for most things AI-generated, the proposition that "AI-assisted [writing, art, ...] is its own medium" is probably something I can accept, in that I think it's just factually correct. However, that doe

More ›