dimal

Bullshit.

Copyright originally maxed out at 28 years. Corporations rewrote the laws over and over, so that now copyright can last over 100 years, turning intellectual property into yet another rent extraction scheme.

Now, in this case, OpenAI argues that “fair use” is for the good of all. OpenAI doesn’t give a shit about what’s good for all. They want the ability to define intellectual property rules so that they can extract rent from someone else’s property.

If they want to benefit everyone, why aren’t their models open? For that matter, why is their name OpenAI, when they are not open? They’re publishing tons of work in mathematics, supposedly to benefit everyone. Instead, why don’t they forgo all research themselves and dedicate their work to supporting existing mathematicians in using AI effectively, so that the people that built the base of knowledge get credit for the new work?

Because OpenAI wants to extract the maximum shareholder value out of other people’s work.

Does anyone actually believe PR like this anymore?

Usually when you look deeper at failures like this, it’s because there’s a morass of bad incentives from the surrounding human system that enforces this kind of behavior.

Here is a plausible alternative explanation:

They’ve probably seen false warnings over and over and overridden them enough times that they lost sense of the risk. They need to keep trains on schedule, using a buggy system, with a manager looking over their shoulder. They override the warnings over and over, nothing goes wrong, and they forget that it may actually be right. Look at the Challenger explosion, Chernobyl, or any other failure like this, and there’s usually a bureaucratic process that has run amok, and the individual is just following perverse incentives that have been socially normalized over time.

So I’ll wait until I have more information before I proclaim this as human negligence and the system doing exactly what it’s supposed to do. We don’t know how often it was doing the wrong thing and confusing the fuck out of the human.

People need to assume that ALL information on social media is lies, misinformation and PR, unless it’s coming from someone personally vetted to be a non-bullshit-oriented honest human.

It’s crazy that people still scroll on X/BlueSky/whatever and mindlessly consume whatever BS is shoveled into their brain. We know that it’s a cesspool of bullshit and yet half the population still wades into it every day.

I usually get very angry at the excessive use of animations everywhere, so I expected that this would give me a nice hit of righteous indignation to top off my afternoon. But this is a fantastic use of animation. In a UI like this, animation is great to helpfully draw your attention to where it’s needed and give you some indication of why you should look there. Very nicely done!

What if a company had human developers doing these same things? What would happen to those developers, those companies? Would anyone be so blasé? Just because it’s AI, it should be forgiven? How is that just?

And don’t forget, OpenAI is supposed to be a non-profit / public benefit corporation creating AI for the good of humanity. These incidents are clear evidence that they are being extremely reckless and are not living up to their supposed standards. What does it matter if they “mean no malice”? They are in a blind rush for profits and that has made them reckless and dangerous. They cannot be trusted.

The company should be shut down or fined into oblivion, as a warning to other companies to not pursue the same reckless path. If they get away with this, then that risks normalizing this behavior.

I think I must be an AI. I’ve written those types of phrases a lot long before the advent of LLMs and I love em dashes. LLMs were trained on human text. Where do you think they got these patterns from? Looking at the rest of the text, I don’t see some of the other LLM tells like excessive usage of bullet lists, and repetition of the same ideas over and over using different language.

It’s a well written, engaging article. Why would it need a disclaimer if they used AI on part of it? They’re not arguing against the usage of LLMs.

As someone who has been debugging their own chronic illnesses for the past ten years (and doing better than my doctors), I wouldn’t consider the medical diagnostic process to be “debugging” at all. And that is exactly the problem. Doctors seem to be stuck thinking like bureaucrats following probabilistic flowcharts, and they’re incapable of actually thinking about a problem and debugging it.

The behavior seems to be so deeply ingrained in every single doctor I’ve seen that it seems impossible to change. I suspect they must have this drilled into them in school and residency, then it seems like every decision is constrained by insurance requirements. As far as I can tell, the situation is hopeless.

> It's self-evidently a terrible idea

Maybe you’re comparing it to some idealized view of what human therapy is like? There’s no benchmark for it, but humans struggle in real mental health care. They make terrible mistakes all the time. And human therapy doesn’t scale to the level needed. Millions of people simply go without help. And therapy is generally one hour a week. You’re supposed to sort out your entire life in that window? Impossible. It sets people up for failure.

So, if we had some perfect system for getting every person that needs help the exact therapist they need, meeting as often as they need, then maybe AI therapy would be a bad idea, but that’s not what we have, and we never will.

Personally, I think the best way to scale mental healthcare is through group therapy and communities. Having a community of people all coming together over common issues has always been far more helpful than one on one therapy for me. But getting some assistance from an AI therapist on off hours can also be useful.

I've actually gone in the other direction. A year ago, I had that feeling, but since then I've gotten more certain that LLMs are never going to be able to handle complexity. And complexity is still the real problem of developing software.

We keep getting more cool features in the tools, but I don't see any indication that the models are getting any better at understanding or managing complexity. They still make dumb mistakes. They still write terrible code if you don't give them lots of guardrails. They still "fix" things by removing functionality or adding a ts-ignore comment. If they were making progress, I might be convinced that eventually they'll get there, but they're not.

That's a misunderstanding. I argue elsewhere in this thread that these categories aren't real, yet I identify as neurodivergent.

One problem is that the language we've been given is one of defects (ADHD, ASD) and often people are stuck using that label even if they don't see their trait as a defect. So we're stuck saying "ADHD" because psychiatry decided that it's a defect. In reality, nearly every "disorder" has some other context-dependent benefit.

And while there's no "neurodivergence" in nature, there is a divergence from what is considered "normal" by society. "Normal" is an artificial construct, but we all have to live with it, and there are many aspects of my nervous system that clearly function in a way that's outside of two standard deviations from the mean, and this causes me a lot of problems in a society that can't tolerate that. These are very very real, and 95% of the time, I never say a word, and no one else has any idea that I'm suffering. I'm not telling anyone else that they're the asshole. Most neurodivergent people are living like this, despite what you're implying, that we're all just walking around being assholes to everyone we meet. That, is bullshit.

> Autism exists, to the extent that any psychiatric disorder exists.

Which is to say, not really. I say this as someone who has been diagnosed as autistic, and identifies as autistic. All of these diagnoses are presented as clear, well defined constructs that exist in the world, but in reality they’re fictions that that committees have drawn around a vast gradient of human traits.

No individual human truly fits any single diagnosis. For example, I have two family members that depending on how you frame their behaviors could be described as either autistic or narcissistic, yet these are supposedly completely different disorders. Prior to being diagnosed as autistic, I’d been diagnosed with some of the ones suggested in the article as well. Was I misdiagnosed? I don’t think so. None of those constructs are real either. So, they’d not even wrong. For a time, some were useful. Some were harmful. But seeing myself as autistic has been a lot more useful.

What matters to me about identifying as autistic is that it allowed me to find other people who experience the world similarly to me. Until I found other autistic people, I felt like I was a single alien stranded on Earth, alone. Finding other autistic people was like finding out that there were millions of other aliens like me hiding in plain sight.

I hope that someday we can move beyond the 1950s-style nosology of the DSM and have a more rigorous science of mental health, but right now, it’s what we’re stuck with.

Perfect is the enemy of good. HTML is good enough. Let’s get this done.

And as another commenter has pointed out, HTML does exactly what you ask for. If it’s done correctly, it doesn’t contain font sizes or layout. Users can style HTML differently with custom CSS.

I went through the same pain with React Router. I would never consider using Remix or anything else from this team. It doesn't matter how great it might be or how much I might agree with the architectural principles. Who knows what shiny new idea they'll be chasing in Remix 4? I'd have to be crazy to trust them.

> I had to read this over a few times to believe that I was seeing it. If it didn’t include the word “literally” I’d assume some poetic license on the part of whoever, or whatever, wrote this.

Unfortunately, the meaning of the word “literally” has morphed into almost the opposite of “literally”. Most people just use it as an intensifier devoid of any true meaning. Makes sense that an LLM that doesn’t have any sense of truth would just stuff that in there.