52-6F-62

If this is indicative of how people are actually thinking in the tech industry these days, then it's doomed. It will devour itself.

Old growth forest don't just come back.

Careful, that's some of that stuff that they teach in humanities and classics courses. You know, what is being labeled as wasteful or impractical in this thread.

Isn't it exactly how the tech industry largely operates today?

Who is it sitting with Donald Trump at regular meetings? Who is it who was just put in charge of the American Military?

Are you really sure of what you are saying?

Who thought understanding, in depth, the fundamental bases of their legal system was a good idea?

> I sent it back and they didn't acknowledge it, probably for various reasons, and I doubt they would like me linking it above.

Because if you study this stuff long enough, you'll find the LLMs hallucinate in this space far more than they do in a discourse or programming project.

It can be close enough to seem useful, but make critical errors that can cause rippling problems.

I've done a lot of the same sort of thing with Latin and chancery and while it can really help in understanding it on a personal level, it takes combing over what it has said and zooming in, comparing it with other information, and understanding the historical context. Otherwise it can completely mangle clauses, contexts, etc.

It is remarkable how well they can start to read things like chancery script, but again, many errors. Not reliable, especially in such large volumes. It would require extensive review. And they are probably getting flooded wth things like that now. And not all of them will be benevolent. History is laden with intentional corruptions and the flat, context-less reading that LLMs give can bury that even further.

Don't inundate researchers, churches, and records offices wth this stuff. But it is absolutely a space where it can help, with proper organization and engagement.

Not in Silicon Valley tech lol!

Bleeding something, alright.

I'm sure some of the career chemists et al at IG Farben and BASF felt similarly in 1945.

There is no amoral middle ground where any of this is detached from its context. Context is everything.

lol, this is odd.

British =/= Briton

And English most certainly =/= Briton.

No more than English == Iroquois

And you're already not getting hired because they're not on your CV.

Because Meta is not the default to everything.

I've personally been hoping for something like this for a while now. Especially a toolset that is not just targeting yet another SaaS or LLM or social media clone interface.

I don't know if you ever used Draft.js that FB put out some time ago, but it was a horribly buggy monstrosity that was a heavy lift to move away from. One could not write several paragraphs and edit them without losing a lot of work. I wouldn't touch "Lexical" no matter the marketing they put on top. I wouldn't be half as critical if it wasn't one of the wealthiest companies on the planet known for injecting billions into black holes while they raid every area of your life they possibly can for data to be used to manipulate socio-political matters everywhere. If they're going to do that, and release open source libraries, then at least make them good enough to be seductive. They aren't.

ProseMirror and seemingly WordGard have real thought and care put into them by people who have long made the DOM/developer experience and the writing experience priorities– not just their "mind share" for whatever dark purposes drive companies like Meta.

Those are not comparable.

One is the method of recording a message, the other is having something else completely draft a message for you.

The importance of a personal message is not just in the visual appearance or delivery, but that there has to be some emotional loading to even put the effort into drafting one.

With AI, it's a stupid prompt to get it to write trite poesy. It's meaningless and empty at its root. It's discourse with a nullity.

Nobody who values the human connections in their lives wants that. No matter what kind of marketing and fine print gets shoved and manipulated into their lives.

So a writer making money is not okay and means he is incorrect by default, but the CEOs siphoning billions off of circular investment schemes is fine?

Personally, I see both parties making predictions.

Meanwhile, I still must labour. How many more yachts are needed before the earth becomes the utopia they keep selling everyone on? How many more communities must have their rights trampled against their expressed will?

Or do I need to scan my retinas and provide Alt-man a DNA sample for a handful of empty crypto currency first?