garylkz

Remember Microsoft Edge? Remember Microsoft Teams? Remember Dev Home? Remember Copilot? Yeah it's the same thing everytime.

Yep, I can't remember when was the last time I've visited a SEO optimized site but I still had the bitter taste that I felt when I last visited it:

- searches for "How to do XYZ" and click one of the site

- "what is xyz"

- "why xyz matters"

- "preparations before xyz"

- "what you might encounter when xyz"

Sounds reasonable and in theory should be useful, but the actual useful info are only stuffed in 1-2 lines of multi paragraphs on tons of sections that I don't care about.

That's because AI is still in the honeymoon phase, unless it's a paying service, at some point the summary will start to have context relevant ads.

Also, I felt like in long term that's going to kill off the good faith of all those smaller sites that are actually good, while the bigger ones still produce subpar contents.

Curious, currently how is the use of AI being detected from papers?

From the article I saw that they're using "excess words" as an indicator, is that a reliable method?

Also, is it possible that it's just autocorrect that added "excess words" when fixing grammar? If that's the case, should that be considered as "use of AI"?

If you force yourself to communicate in certain language, you more or less will be able to communicate with it sooner or later.

(Provided that you have basic understanding to the language)

On Arch if I'm not mistaken, you can export your archinstall configuration to be used at other machines although it's not fully "declarative" but I believe it sort of works for certain use cases

Buddhism encourages non-violence, it's not strictly enforced, but there will be consequences when they die.

Then again, just because some people's doctrine does not encourage violence doesn't give others a free ticket to bash on them for doing so.

The whole point of becoming a monk is to try to have control over their desires, exercise mental discipline like how Buddha does.

If one is already able to achieve all of that they won't even need to become a monk, because they've already achieved what they wanted to.

When people are doing something "in the name of religion", it's possible that they are just trying to justify their actions to achieve certain goals

Ah yes, that exactly

Yes, it's truth as in "consensus" but not the absolute truth, and I don't think we are going to reach the absolute truth anytime soon.

You're assuming that everyone will agree on the truth just because it's the "truth", but why do you think we no longer believe that earth is the center of world?

There will always people who questions the truth and did research and study about it, discovers new observations of the subject and replace the existing if it convinced the majority.

It's question that lead us closer to the truth (occasionally it does the opposite). That's why we made new discoveries, and that's why you are here questioning about the truthfulness of truth.

From my totally biased understanding, truth is what groups of people agreed on, people believe what they believed in. Even though people agreed on the same thing, each of them would have different interpretation of the truth that they believe it, with certain levels of overlap.

So a full circle from colorful design to simplified design to flat design then to colorful design again.

Curious, do you supervise the code itself or at least understand what the code is trying to do?

By "I didn't edit a single line", do you still prompt the agent to fix any issues you found? If so, is that consided an edit?

Imo there is nothing wrong with generating code with AI, it's the effort spent on supervising the quality of product that matters.

But that requires you to have certain levels of knowledge on that domain to begin with, which is not something you can just "vibe" your way out, at least for now.