Being born into a 1% household and understanding the asymmetric upside that having the money and the time to speculate is far more significant than the civil and criminal legal violations on the way.

The most common way to go from one-percenter rich to .001% rich is to already have enough wealthy people generating capital in your personal network that you can raise capital on sweetheart terms to buy the labor of people who don't.

Then you sell it at a massive premium and repeat.

I think it's empirically dubious to identify the UW mainframes as the secret sauce instead of "being able to ask your mom for a meeting with the chairman of IBM followed by asking her for 80,000 dollars ASAP."

If the original creators of DOS were born into a wealthy family and on a first name basis with the chairman of IBM, do you think they would've sold it to Gates?

Trying to attribute the tech business "founding crime" feels like displacement for what is perfectly legal and accepted cultural practice.

Or would you describe your methodology as more like picking a random sentence fragment as an input value then generating completions from your existing corpus without any post-input "learning" process related to the rest of the source material?

The overall impression given was inaccurate and the implicit claim of a fully working end-to-end generated compiler was inaccurate. The headlines were incomplete in a way that was intentionally misleading. It was an interesting experiment and somewhat impressive but the claims were overblown. It happens.

Then I realized that the github ui was auto-collapsing a dozen messages in a row that were all completely devoid of any informational value and certainly sourced from forums and community discord channels.

This places everyone in a no-win situation. Someone who has identified critical issues that they believe the majority of a relevant community would be concerned about has good reason to signal-boost as much as they can.

It's a substantial request about very recent changes, and tone-policing it doesn't make it less true. The problem is that the additional attention literally kills the discussion. This also provides cover for people who may be making more emotive or ai-psychosis influenced decisions on the maintainer side.

Projects with a siege mentality which block and ignore criticism tend to go off the rails very quickly. On the other hand, maintainer burnout is inevitable for projects which can't shield maintainers from the anxieties and pathologies of people who seem to think that if they complain about AI enough, everyone else will stop trying to use and improve it it.