createful

So what's the point of making a GitHub if you're not going to publish source code? Is this an inside joke?

There being no third party checks is the point, and it's not bad.

Keep in mind that those open source/weight models are not as powerful as whatever closed source Claude/GPT version exists behind the scenes that hack companies. As per the Hugging Face hack - open weight GLM saved the day as closed source ChatGPT refused to help Hugging Face fix their systems. An example of my point that "sidestepping any third-party checks that could be present" IS good.

Part of point of open source/weight AI is that it allows what those model providers can't: uncensored models for whatever reason you may need it. You are responsible for being legal with it.

That assumes AI is designed to be malicious, "the spinning blades". AI is not; the public version given to you is the sanded down one, in the same way that cars don't have spinning blades but can still be dangerous when misused.

If a person closes his eyes and hits the gas pedal on the car and runs over someone, the person is to blame, not the car. AI companies do the same. Your eyes may be closed but you're still operating/hosting the car/AI.

All these "safety" bills are to stop open source models by painting them as "dangerous". Regulatory capture.

Companies are responsible for their agents; you don't blame the car for running over the person.

Not Qwen, Bonsai. Although it is based on Qwen, and achieves similar scores, it is not the "full" Qwen.

Last I remember, when trying to run a model above 1-2 GB on iOS, it would refuse to do so, at least from Locally AI. iOS only allows apps to use about 1-2 GB of RAM before being killed. Though using their Neural APIs might bypass this.

If it's called /dev/null... shouldn't all your responses be sent nowhere? Shouldn't it be a blank page? ;)

Your end users are divided into multiple categories though.

AI spending is a bit like Pokemon games - most of your players are free to play, only earning you traffic and maybe some more players after recommending it to their friends - that's the average AI user. Around 5-10% of players pay a bit to the game - maybe to unlock some extra characters - those are the $20-$200 AI subscription users, with these you are not going to fund the whole business but it's some side cash. Then you have the 1℅, which spend massive amounts of money onto the game, and those are the ones primarily funding it - that's the business spending and where most of the money actually comes from.

You can only blame the average person for using the cloud service and recommending it to others.

I fully agree that companies are doing this, not their "agents", and that companies are responsible for the damages they do.

But I don't think the average person with their $20 subscription to whoever is the primary source of revenue. Enterprises fund most of it by buying API keys and making those fancy chatbot buttons on their sites that nobody clicks, as well as some internal business automations if I had to guess.

If it was just average people with $20 subscriptions funding all this (keep in mind, most people using AI services do not pay for it), by now, all these AI companies would have gone bankrupt.

This!

This is exactly why I can't understand the AI mental health stuff about it being demotivating. I find it exciting to build apps in the same way, I don't pump out apps like a machine gun, but I do manage to make high quality apps I can maintain myself, as I've discovered. It just takes effort, which I'm willing to put in with AI. Never understood the hate around that. It's possible to have "soul" or anything that normal, "artisanal" apps have if you put in effort, and AI made it easier, at least for me, to put in effort.

Not CLI commands but system calls. Technically, in that sense, both commands and desktops abstract system calls. It's just that desktops handle a lot more than individual commands, aiming to make it easier for the user to use the computer.

I call it an "abstraction" because that's what it is. Instead of you writing commands manually into the terminal, you use a program that calls it for you and does the hard work. That's what an abstraction is, you're abstracting away something by making an interface around it.

All interfaces, as a matter of fact, are abstractions.

You could also say the same with desktops. Desktops abstracted CLI commands like mv or ls. People who are taught on desktops will get scared when they see a terminal.

Yet programmers will still know commands. Abstractions can make things easier but it doesn't require losing skills.

They cover Anubis if you scroll a bit up:

> POWBlock is ~1/60th the size of Anubis, has ~7x higher performance on an 8-core benchmark machine, gives you full customization...

Anubis is still more worth it just because it is open source (and also has full customization).

Guitar Hero is a "rhythm game", perhaps calling it a "guitar simulator" is a bit incorrect. A rhythm game is one where you, for example, push buttons in tune with a song, exactly what Guitar hero is.

So you are good at different things. Maybe not at a real guitar but perhaps at reaction times.

I say this as someone who had one of those plug-in guitars but never knew how to use it, hah.

Except Guitar Hero is a game, and is marketed as such. Guitar Hero is like Bitcoin mining, you are doing useless computations to make some number go up, in the case of Bitcoin, your money, and Guitar Hero, your score.

But AI actually does something unlike Guitar Hero. There is a real output that can be used tomorrow even if AI "goes away".

You say AI helps you learn no skills, essentially. I don't know about you, but AI helped me understand Linux better in a way I didn't feel confident I would be able to before AI. I have created code with AI that I can maintain, and understand without it.

AI can go in conjunction with learning manually and can be helpful. Just because many examples exist of AI being unhelpful does not mean the whole technology is unhelpful.

It's not impossible to skew an LLM into a specific style of writing, one to reflect the author's intentions.

I think that LLMs made everything easier, as in, lowered the barrier. With that, comes a natual inscentive to be lazy, and not implement your style of writing into it. This will mean the production of more "slop" articles but also a chance for great novels with the help of LLMs. As I say, both human and AI slop exists, as well as truly great things from both. Similarly to how before AI, we had "little to no code!" promises, "make your app with no experience", as well as the endless WordPress/"PHP scripts" promising "SEO optimization" and likes from everyone.

Except all these pre LLM methods were limited and could easily be ignored; now the machine can truly get "smarter" and output new content to the point where beginners can truly become something better (or output beginner quality work at mass) with little to no work, exactly as promised before.

What strikes me about (some, or most of, as I see nowadays) Anti AI is that you never really cared about the human before AI, it was all about quality. But only now do you decide to care about the human? If you truly did, won't you have cared about the human before?