I think the fact you need tool calling to stop it doing that, shows the underlying issue with trusting it to do anything without a human

It’s still faster to use AI to generate code while reading and guiding the code. Hell even long before LLms I would write python scripts to generate boilerplate code etc. LLM can be used similarly as a productivity boost in serious systems.

This is a good parallel. In the 90s when I learned to drive I was quite good at navigating. Now google maps is on a screen in my car telling me where to go whenever I drive beyond my most common routes.

Really all the research telling us about AI skills atrophy.. We should have guessed from previous experience.

Old people my entire life have made fun of younger people for “not being able to read maps” or something.

But I’ve never seen anyone follow a GPS so religiously into so many obvious dead ends than elderly Uber drivers.

Good to have more than a hammer in your toolbox!

I assume you mean open weight models? I wish we had better open source models. It would make LLMs far less icky if we had nice clean open trained models. A breakthrough on the cost of training would be nice.

We really can't have open source LLM, because they are all based on the stolen IP, or stolen IP slightly laundered and under different title.

I feel like an opt-in model built on AGPL code should output AGPL code.

I'd put my work into that. Not the only option just an example.

Every great project takes time to build. It's possible.

Hmm...no. These two things are orthogonal. Regardless, Olmo are opensource.

Nemotron is genuinely open source at least at the smaller sizes. You can download the datasets.

Also everything from scratch by allen.ai.

Weights, datasets, code, multiple checkpoints...

I like their FlexOlmo concept.

Fair clarification, yes.

Check out Apertus, the publicly funded model from a research team that goes to great lengths to remove icky content.

I think Gemini might be wise to rename, now there's a commercial product trampling all over it's namespace.

However if it's supposed to continue being an indie protocol and fly under the radar, it's perfect

emacs users who are hostile to you configuring things, aren't really getting the point IMO :)

The list of things emacs users don't get seems to get longer per day so I'm not surprised at the reaction OP got, just disappointed

(but I still think this is on nginx more than emacs - unless they really mean foo~ and not .foo~ )

> The list of things emacs users don't get seems to get...

There are a ton of Emacs users, and it's doesn't make much sense to talk about them as a group like that, no more than if I were to say, "The list of things Windows users don't get..."

They are hostile to me proposing a better (IMO) default

It depends on what you mean by default and whose default.

You can change your own defaults quite easily!

Changing the default setup with emacs that has been shipping for > 30 years is tough.

Getting nginx to ignore a well established pattern by a well established editor seems equally sensible and perhaps more doable. Yes?

By default I mean whatever you get by doing `sudo apt-get install emacs-nox`

I disagree about "tough". Emacs has changed for the better in new releases quite drastically in the last years in my experience.

how many of these stars were applied by openclaw?

Spirit of Perl is still alive

We've seen this process before. If you don't pay, you are the product.

But people ARE paying and still getting ads in this move.

Their Go plan, which is paid, is getting ads.

There exists no (or very few) subscription service that has no tier without advertisements. You are panicking for no reason.

Netflix?

Hulu?

Youtube?

Spotify?

Adobe?

Duolingo?

X?

Then everything is ok since everyone's doing it!

you didn't get my point - no one is doing it and there's a reason why.,

This is simply not (always) true. Spotify injects ads for Podcasts even for paying users. YouTube has tons of videos with adds built-in by content creators.

Yep, and a lot of the streaming services listed also inject ads for their own shows into the "ad-free" tier's content (before it begins). Plus ads on the home-page.

this is an incorrect analogy - the platform is not showing ads but rather the creators themselves.

I dunno, I think it's clearly different if Spotify is using their platform to inject the ads vs the creators creating the content with ads included.

Like if Netflix let showrunners inject ads into their shows and provided a technical platform for that, and the Stranger Things creators added ads to every episode... nobody would be like "it's not Netflix showing ads, it's the Stranger Things creators".