Sometimes Apple's malicious compliance is in service of (or less generously: aligned with) users' interests. I didn't know about the added fees that parent mentioned, so I appreciate them clarifying in this case.
I've read many posts and comments at this point that describe LLMs in very reductionist language. Eg, from the article:
> They’re a trillion numbers in a trenchcoat; not logical, in either a machine or a mental sense, but stochastic.
Many of these posts and comments claim that human minds are substantially different ("better" is implied). The evidence is a sort of broad gesturing at explanations of how LLMs are implemented ("math") and how they work ("guess the next word"). And because of these facts, we should treat them in a particular way, or certain things will never happen.
I've been trying to look past the obvious straw man here and to actually think critically about this tech as well as compare it to my own experience and (admittedly very limited) understanding of the human brain.
In more ways than feels comfortable, it seems entirely possible to me that these things actually are or could be really close to the ways that our own minds work.
Our own minds/consciousness are ultimately based on physical processes, I don't think anyone would dispute that. At some point, the physical phenomena in our brains presumably result in the emergent behavior of thinking and consciousness. We have no idea how it works, but it's our lived experience. Why can't that be the case for silicon-based rather than carbon-based processes? How can we say with any certainty that it's not happening elsewhere if we don't know how it works?
Reducing their function to "guessing the next word" sounds an awful lot like what happens when I start talking to someone. I have an idea of what I want to say, but I almost never have a sentence planned out when I start it.
The article puts "thinking" and "hallucination" in scare quotes. But I mean – the way that they appear to think by working through problems with language mirrors my own "thinking" very closely.
It says "They’re not thinking. They’re not hallucinating"; the exercise of figuring out why is left to the reader. If you've ever talked to a 3 or 4 year old, or someone who's tired, you may have had similar experiences re: hallucinations.
These are all pretty surface level examples, but as I use the tools more and learn more about how they work I'm not seeing any significant evidence that counters the examples.
I do think it's probably dangerous and unhealthy to really anthropomorphize AI/LLMs. They're obviously not human even if they're thinking, and they're being made and shaped by companies (and training sets) that exist in a predominantly capitalist world (but then again, I guess we are too).
I assume similar lines of thinking being discussed somewhere, but I haven't found much (and I feel like I'm reading about AI all day). Curious to hears others' thoughts and/or to be pointed to wherever this stuff is being talked about.
Besides nitpicking, even your original point isn't even true. You cannot transplant a 100 year old tree (which has not been constrained in size dramatically) and expect it to survive for any reasonable length of time.
Hey, this looks seriously awesome. Love the ideas here, specifically: the programmability (I haven't tried it yet, but had been considering learning tmux partly for this), layered UI, browser w/ api. Looking forward to giving this a spin. Also want to add that I really appreciate Mitchell Hashimoto creating libghostty; it feels like an exciting time to be a terminal user.
Some feedback (since you were asking for it elsewhere in the thread!). Happy to go into more detail about any of these if it's helpful:
- It's not obvious/easy to open browser dev tools (cmd-alt-i didn't work), and when I did find it (right click page -> inspect element) none of the controls were visible but I could see stuff happening when I moved my mouse over the panel
- Would be cool to borrow more of ghostty's behavior:
- hotkey overrides - I have some things explicitly unmapped / remapped in my ghostty config that conflict with some cmux keybindings and weren't respected
- command palette (cmd-shift-p) for less-often-used actions + discoverability
- cmd-z to "zoom in" to a pane is enormously useful imo
> hotkey overrides - I have some things explicitly unmapped / remapped in my ghostty config that conflict with some cmux keybindings and weren't respected
We need to be better about this; right now you can modify keyboard shorcuts with cmd+, in the GUI. Planning on making it a config file in the spirit of ghostty though, not sure if we want to reuse ghostty's config file though since it might become a maintenance burden for them...
> command palette (cmd-shift-p) for less-often-used actions + discoverability
yes
> cmd-z to "zoom in" to a pane is enormously useful imo
Thinking of the right way to design this. Like hypothetically we can expand it, but what happens if you make a vertical/horizontal split, or cmd+t to make a new tab? I guess we could just "merge" it back into the original space which would be pretty cool.
IMO (re zoom behavior):
if you make a new tab, it should add a new tab as normal and stay zoomed in. the tab bar (of the currently zoomed in panel) would still be at the top while zoomed in, and workspaces still appear to the side
if you make a new split (or navigate splits), it would zoom you back out (contract the panel) and just split/navigate the way it normally would
> You need to realise that if you use them, you’re both financially and socially supporting dodgy companies doing dodgy things. They will use your support to push their agenda. If these tools are working for you, we’re genuinely pleased. But please also stop using them.
> Your adoption helps promote the companies making these tools. People see you using it and force it onto others at the studio, or at other workplaces entirely. From what we’ve seen, this is followed by people getting fired and overworked. If it isn’t happening to you and your colleagues, great. But you’re still helping it happen elsewhere. And as we said, even if you fixed the labour concerns tomorrow, there are still many other issues. There’s more than just being fired to worry about.
Thanks for sharing your process and config! I went on a pretty similar journey, though I've been on macOS the whole time. I've gotta say, Aerospace is one of my favorite pieces of software. It really makes it so much less tedious to move around my computer.
I tried vimium and homerow too, and I liked them, but lately I've been using mouseless more (https://mouseless.click) and overall would recommend it.
League works on macOS just fine, I played yesterday. Vanguard is buggy (it occasionally quits the client after I finish a game), but the game generally works and has for at least several years.
I'll reply here in good faith: I just don't see how you connect those dots, or why this has anything to do with gender.
> women have asserted themselves in the workforce
Agree.
> young women being the creators of mass culture for their generation
Citation(s) needed. I've never heard an argument for this or even seen someone suggest it before.
> partial driver for why everyone is so much less independent
Even if we take your previous statements as true, what does that have to do with peoples' independence?
To me (and my own confirmation bias pet issue), it seems much more likely that having recordings and visible online identities the way we do now with smartphones, ever present cameras, and social media causes people to think a lot more about how they're perceived by others.
And, the flip side, spending so much time seeing other people via tv, online videos, social media, etc constantly reinforces what "normal" behavior looks like.
People are also so absorbed in modern media that they just do way less interesting stuff overall imo.
Hey there, thanks for the good faith, here's what I hope is reciprocal.
> I'll reply here in good faith: I just don't see how you connect those dots, or why this has anything to do with gender.
That's a reasonable opinion to doubt that gender affects this at all. I'm not certain it does myself, but I thought it was worth discussing in case there is a role there.
> Citation(s) needed. I've never heard an argument for this or even seen someone suggest it before.
I heard it in person from my sister over a year ago, I don't have scientific data at all for this. Totally 'just, like, my opinion, man.'
Having said that, here's [1]/[2](archive link) some Forbes blogger who relatively compactly lays out the theory of how young women are creators of mass culture for their generation.
> Even if we take your previous statements as true, what does that have to do with peoples' independence?
I mis-spoke here I should have expanded 'independence' there to represent people's awareness of the 'slow life history path' that is more common today.
> To me (and my own confirmation bias pet issue), it seems much more likely that having recordings and visible online identities the way we do now with smartphones, ever present cameras, and social media causes people to think a lot more about how they're perceived by others.
You know I think this is very fair and probably more relevant than my comment. If everybody is watching us all the time, we act on our best behavior and are not (for better/worse) feeling as much at liberty to be our unfettered deviant selves.
> And, the flip side, spending so much time seeing other people via tv, online videos, social media, etc constantly reinforces what "normal" behavior looks like.
Also fair. There are many subcultures now, from fountain pen collectors to fantasy writers to Managed Democrats (as a random and /definitely/ not specific-to-me example), and you can tailor your behavior to what the community expects just as the royal we used to do back when we would use internet forums and learn what they liked/didn't like.
> People are also so absorbed in modern media that they just do way less interesting stuff overall imo.
I could see that. I do a lot of potentially interesting things in-person or in LAN that I will never let go WAN, I know that the public web is the largest/harshest critic out there and the downside risks are ever yawning while the upside risks are not that much. So if others come to similar conclusions, then the only online stuff that most normal people will put up will be the curated social media appropriate highlight reels.
tl;dw: Get a big drum fan with a screen on the back, attached with small/powerful magnets. Mosquitos are such poor flyers that they get pulled against the screen and can't escape, and they pretty quickly desiccate and die. Most other flying insects don't get caught, although there is a bit of collateral (some moths and lacewings, unfortunately). Another benefit of the fan is that you can hang out in front of it and mosquitos mostly won't bother you there either.
I did this in our shared backyard space in Brooklyn and would catch hundreds/thousands of mosquitos per week. Despite that, there were still a ton of mosquitos in the area so it's best combined with other methods of control.
I have a bug catcher that kind of looks like a Dyson bladeless fan but runs in reverse. Inside the ring, there's UV (?) LEDs to attract bugs. Once they fly in, the fan sucks them down into the base where there's a sticky paper. The base has a tight mesh around it so they are trapped if they somehow manage to not hit the sticky paper immediately. We use it for soil gnats but I've also seen some houseflies in there too.
I changed the video link to an updated version where he goes into much more detail. You don't need any lure (I didn't use any), but you can see in the updated link that he places the fans around where his dog sleeps and also uses a bottle of soda with the cap slightly unscrewed to slowly leak CO2.
In general though, if there are enough mosquitos around they will get caught in it without any additional effort.
I may be more sound sensitive than most, but if I could hear it loudly for even 5-10 minutes I'd be annoyed. 3-4 hours? While I'm at home? Absolutely no way; I'd complain too.
In the UK stationary ice cream trucks don't play music, only those travelling around, so you hear it for a couple of minutes at most as it winds around the neighborhood. I'd also be complaining if it was going on for hours :-)
Weird take to shift the blame to Apple for that.
reply