Mniot @ Mniot @programming.dev

> Mniot Mniot Mniot Mniot Mniot Mniot Mniot Mniot

---

Read more

Posts

0

Comments

52

Joined

4 mo. ago

I once did some programming on the Cybiko, a device from 2000 that could form a wireless mesh network with peers. The idea was that you could have a shopping mall full of teens and they'd be able to chat with each other from one end to the other by routing through the mesh. It was a neat device!

This is good advice for all tertiary sources such as encyclopedias, which are designed to introduce readers to a topic, not to be the final point of reference. Wikipedia, like other encyclopedias, provides overviews of a topic and indicates sources of more extensive information.

The whole paragraph is kinda FUD except for this. Normal research practice is to (get ready for a shock) do research and not just copy a high-level summary of what other people have done. If your professors were saying, "don't cite encyclopedias, which includes Wikipedia" then that's fine. But my experience was that Wikipedia was specifically called out as being especially unreliable and that's just nonsense.

I personally use ChatGPT like I would Wikipedia

Eesh. The value of a tertiary source is that it cites the secondary sources (which cite the primary). If you strip that out, how's it different from "some guy told me..."? I think your professors did a bad job of teaching you about how to read sources. Maybe because they didn't know themselves. :-(

I think it was. When I think of Wikipedia, I'm thinking about how it was in ~2005 (20 years ago) and it was a pretty solid encyclopedia then.

There were (and still are) some articles that are very thin. And some that have errors. Both of these things are true of non-wiki encyclopedias. When I've seen a poorly-written article, it's usually on a subject that a standard encyclopedia wouldn't even cover. So I feel like that was still a giant win for Wikipedia.

I think the academic advice about Wikipedia was sadly mistaken. It's true that Wikipedia contains errors, but so do other sources. The problem was that it was a new thing and the idea that someone could vandalize a page startled people. It turns out, though, that Wikipedia has pretty good controls for this over a reasonable time-window. And there's a history of edits. And most pages are accurate and free from vandalism.

Just as you should not uncritically read any of your other sources, you shouldn't uncritically read Wikipedia as a source. But if you are going to uncritically read, Wikipedia's far from the worst thing to blindly trust.

I don't think the article summarizes the research paper well. The researchers gave the AI models simple-but-large (which they confusingly called "complex") puzzles. Like Towers of Hanoi but with 25 discs.

The solution to these puzzles is nothing but patterns. You can write code that will solve the Tower puzzle for any size n and the whole program is less than a screen.

The problem the researchers see is that on these long, pattern-based solutions, the models follow a bad path and then just give up long before they hit their limit on tokens. The researchers don't have an answer for why this is, but they suspect that the reasoning doesn't scale.

Can't even ignore the pain of getting a post deleted...

But delete-instead-of-downvote is how you drive out the trolls. If you give shitty people a platform labeled "I think this person is wrong" then you've still given them a platform.

They said "please stop donating". Returning funds or organizing what to do with them is a bunch of work. If they're shutting down because running the instance is too much work and they feel hassled then I wouldn't begrudge them just keeping the few thousand left over.

The title of this post is disappointing. The given answer is sound and it seems safe to assume it was arrived at by thinking mathematically.

Just saw: they're changing it back because you don't appreciate it enough :(

Thanks for linking that. Reading the paper, it looks like the majority of the "self-host" population they're capturing is people who have a WordPress site. By my reading, the wording of the paper would disqualify a wordpress.com-hosted site as "self-hosted". But I'd be very suspicious of their methodology and would expect that quite a few people who use WP-hosted reported as self-hosted because the language is pretty confusing.

Some people think, "oh this witch leaving a note means she's really powerless and I can keep taking the rhubarb." It's not going to be so awesome when she forecloses on his first-born.

I don't understand how you think this works.

If I say, "now we have robots that can build a car from scratch!" the automakers will be salivating. But if my robot actually cannot build a car, then I don't think it's going to cause mass layoffs.

Many of the big software companies are doing mass layoffs. It's not because AI has taken over the jobs. They always hired extra people as a form of anti-competitiveness. Now they're doing layoffs to drive salaries down. That sucks and tech workers would be smart to unionize (we won't). But I don't see any radical shift in the industry.

To be honest, you sound like you're only just starting to learn to code.

Will coding forever belong to humans? No. Is the current generative-AI technology going to replace coders? Also no.

The reaction you see is frustration because it's obvious to anyone with decent skill that AI isn't up to the challenge, but it's not obvious to people who don't have that skill and so we now spend a lot of time telling bosses "no, that's not actually correct".

Someone else referenced Microsoft's public work with Copilot. Here's Copilot making 13 PRs over 5 days and only 4 ever get merged you might think "30% success is pretty good!" But compare that with human-generated PRs and you can see that 30% fucking sucks. And that's not even looking inside the PR where the bot wastes everyone's time making tons of mistakes. It's just a terrible coworker and instead of getting fired they're getting an award for top performer.

Commercial software has advertising: people whose job is to advertise it. That means TV and web ads for Bluesky, influencers talking about it. It also means a team of software engineers building parts of the system specifically to draw people in, whereas non-commercial software often rejects that (lack of infinite-scroll on Lemmy's default UI, for example).

Activity Pub also requires a different mind-set that doesn't exist elsewhere on the internet today. You need to decide which instance to join, or maybe to host your own instance. But it doesn't really matter, because you can federate with other instances. But you have to drive some of that federation, so it does matter a little. It's pretty complex and confusing and its a problem that only exists in this one niche of software.

Bluesky gives you an infinite feed that feels like you're connected to the entire Internet without you doing any work. I think the AP service are doing really well, considering what they're up against.

I was at Google when they announced that only AI-related projects would be able to request increased budget. I don't know if they're still doing that specifically, but I'm sure they are still massively incentivizing teams to slap an "AI Inside" sticker on everything.

Based on the article, it seems like cult-follower behavior. Not everyone is susceptible to cults (I think it's a combo of individual brain and life-circumstances), but I wouldn't say, "eh, it's not the cult's fault that these delusional people killed themselves!"

lol is it even worth tracking what's tariffed today?

Though, do be careful because there are abusive same-sex relationships and sometimes it's even harder to get away because the people around you are telling you "but women can't be abusers!"

To someone watching network traffic, a VPN connection looks like two machines exchanging encrypted packets. You can't see the actual data inside the packet, but you can see all the metadata (who it's addressed to, how big it is, whether its TCP or UDP, when it's sent). From the metadata, you can make guesses about the content and VPN would be pretty easy to guess.

When sending a packet over the Internet, there's two parts of the address: the IP address and the port. The IP address is a specific Internet location, blocks of IP addresses are owned by groups (who owns what is public info) and there are many services that do geo-ip mappings. So if you're connecting to an IP address that belongs to a known VPN provider, that's easy.

The second part of the address is the port-number. Servers choose port-numbers to listen to and the common convention is to use well-known ports. So, for example, HTTPS traffic is on port 443. If you see a computer making a lot of requests to port 443, even though the traffic is encrypted we can guess that they're browsing the web. Wikipedia has a list (which is incomplete because new software can be written at any time and make up a new port that it prefers) and you can see lots of VPN software on there. If you're connecting to a port that's known to be used by VPN software, we can guess that you're using VPN software.

Once you're running VPN software on an unknown machine and have configured it to use a non-standard port, it's a bit harder to tell what's happening, but it's still possible to make a pretty confident guess. Some VPN setups use "split-tunnel" where some traffic goes over VPN and some over the public Internet. (This is most common in corporate use where private company traffic goes in the tunnel, but browsing Lemmy would go over public.) Sometimes, DNS doesn't go through the VPN which is a big give-away: you looked up "foo.com" and sent traffic to 172.67.137.159. Then you looked up "bar.org" and sent traffic to the same 172.67.137.159. Odds are that thing is a VPN (or other proxy).

Finally, you can just look at more complex patterns in the traffic. If you're interested, you could install Wireshark or just run tcpdump and watch your own network traffic. Basic web-browsing is very visible: you send a small request ("HTTP GET /index.html") and you get a much bigger response back. Then you send a flurry of smaller requests for all the page elements and get a bunch of bigger responses. Then there's a huuuuge pause. Different protocols will have different shapes (a MOBA game would probably show more even traffic back-and-forth).

You wouldn't be able to be absolutely confident with this, but over enough time and people you can get very close. Or you can just be a bit aggressive and incorrectly mark things as VPNs.