landhar

You’re absolutely right. Re-reading my take I recognize it is unfair to present these as “naïve”/“serious”. Optimization is a really complex area and there’s a lot of nuance and layers on the techniques involved.

By the way, thanks for marginalia and the great write-ups on your blog.

> Current models are clearly nowhere near the efficiency limit (the brain does vastly more with far less power).

I think this is disingenuous. One could say that drones are nowhere the efficiency limit either: a bee can fly for hours on the energy contained in just a few milligrams of honey, while our best battery-powered drones can't stay airborne for more than 30 minutes. But comparing energy efficiency of electric/mechanical devices to their biological counterparts is not an apples-to-apples comparison. There's a world of difference between the energy storage and delivery mechanisms.

And as many have pointed out already in the siblings, it's not just about the compute but the access to petabytes of training data.

> But here we're talking about a system where legitimate users (human browsers) and scrapers get the same value for every application of the work function. The cost:value ratio is unchanged; it's just that everything is more expensive for everybody. You're getting the worst of both worlds: user-visible costs and a system that favors large centralized well-capitalized clients.

Based on my own experience fighting these AI scrappers, I feel that the way they are actually implemented makes it that in practice there is asymmetry in the work scrappers have to do vs humans.

The pattern these scrappers follow is that they are highly distributed. I’ll see a given {ip, UA} pair make a request to /foo immediately followed by _hundreds_ of requests from completely different {ip, UA} pairs to all the links from that page (ie: /foo/a, /foo/b, /foo/c, etc..).

This is a big part of what makes these AI crawlers such a challenge for us admins. There isn’t a whole lot we can do to apply regular rate limiting techniques: the IPs are always changing and are no longer limited to corporate ASN (I’m now seeing IPs belonging to consumer ISPs and even cell phone companies), and the User Agents all look genuine. But when looking through the logs you can see the pattern that all these unrelated requests are actually working together to perform a BFS traversal of your site.

Given this pattern, I believe that’s what makes the Anubis approach actually work well in practice. For a given user, they will encounter the challenge once when accessing the site the first time, then they’ll be able to navigate through it without incurring any cost. While the AI scrappers would need to solve the challenge for every single one of their “nodes” (or whatever it is they would call their {ip, UA} pairs). From a site reliability perspective, I don’t even care if the crawlers manage to solve the challenge or not. That it manages to slow them down enough to rate limit them as a network is enough.

To be clear: I don’t disagree with you that the cost incurred by regular human users is still high. But I don’t think it’s fair to say that this is not a situation in which the cost to the adversary is not asymmetrical. It wouldn’t be if the AI crawlers hadn’t converged towards an implementation that behaves as a DDOS botnet.

Do you have pointers to this? As a Spaniard I recall that even though I was originally told the spanish alphabet treated the LL as its own letter, it always felt quite inconsistent. And I always assumed it’s removal was more about simplifying things than having to do with computers

Curious, what do you mean by “autocompletion of tags”?

You’re right.. and yet I don’t believe everyone got to vote on whether we should burn all those fossil fuels in the first place.

I’ve been using a Steel HR for a few years now. I’m extremely satisfied.

Long battery life is an understatement! Even when the battery drops to near 0 the watch is still useable as a plain analog watch for at least a week giving me enough time to find where I left the damn charger (given that I don’t get to use it often at all).

What I don’t get is how this model (analog watch with just enough smarts) hasn’t gained more traction. It seems to me there’s a lot of opportunities in this space, not everything requires a high resolution display.

You might be right that it won’t matter in the long run. But I’d argue that targeting gamers and tech enthusiasts is going to make it harder to reach mass market adoption.

For instance, with computers, laptops and cell phones being first and foremost business tools it was common in the early days for those to be provided by the employers. That really played a big role in normalizing their presence around the home before they became mainstream products.

I have a hard time seeing a similar thing happening with these goggles, but I’m far from being an expert in these things.

Yes, that was what I was trying to articulate. Thank you for phrasing it more clearly.