(Obviously this only works when running local models, as you don't have access to raw token streams in the cloud.)

Who are you (or who am I) to decide that? The entire point of a show HN is to be non-judgmental and charitable, otherwise it's just going to turn into a cynical echo-chamber. The famous Dropbox comment is a cautionary tale for a reason.

Also, your comment is just trivially unininteresting to begin with: what is "submitting," what is "private," what is a "privacy guarantee," what is a "crime"? It's just outrage slop. If you're a lawyer and have something substantive to say, please do so (and a lot of lawyers on HN do), but otherwise, Lincoln put it best: "Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt."

Yes, and it's pretty common knowledge that Calculus was (finally) formalized by Weierstrass in the early 19th century, having spent almost two centuries in mathematical limbo. Calculus was intuitive, solved a great class of problems, but its roots were very much (ironically) vibes-based.

This isn't unique to Newton or Leibniz, Euler did all kinds of "illegal" things (like playing with divergent series, treating differentials as actual quantities, etc.) which worked out and solved problems, but were also not formalized until much later.

If you know anything about the invention of new math (analytic geometry, Calculus, etc.), you'd know how untrue this is. In fact, Calculus was extremely hand-wavy and without rigorous underpinnings until the mid 1800s. Again: more art than science.

Most discoveries are indeed implied from axioms, but every now and then, new mathematics is (for lack of a better word) "created"—and you have people like Descartes, Newton, Leibniz, Gauss, Euler, Ramanujan, Galois, etc. that treat math more like an art than a science.

For example, many belive that to sovle the Riemann Hypothesis, we likely need some new kind of math. Imo, it's unlikely that an LLM will somehow invent it.

> Love that way of thinking.

I mean.. yeah, kinda'? We live in a society made up of laws, that's kind of the premise. So if we don't think something is fine, we can make it illegal (and we often do).

It's a pretty good way of thinking methinks, what's your alternative?

Imo, there's so much room for an actual normie end-product that supercharges local work with AI for regular people (office workers, creatives, etc.), but a VSCode clone ain't it. (Insert: fine, I'll do it myself Thanos meme.)

From my cursory glance, the real magic (InvisiCaps) appears to be a unique take on fat pointers to track types, access rights, etc. Pretty clever, and the website is a great technical read.

I studied philosophy at a pretty prestigious institution, and he's not taken that seriously. He lives squarely in the deep caverns of the "continental" space, where philosophy is often intertwined with psychology, politics, sociology, and so on. But even there, he doesn't reach the level of Sartre, Heidegger, or (of course) Hegel.

Let alone Kant, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche (who generally all have specifically dedicated courses). I'm not a huge fan of Nietzsche, but he always has a point. When I read Sartre or Foucault, I'm just left scratching my head as to what they are talking about.

I used to be vehemently against AI coding just a few years ago, because the hallucinations were a deal-breaker. However, these days, most of my code is written using AI. It's still very "corporate junior" so it takes constant tweaking, hand re-writing, or total re-architecting, but it's leaps and bounds better than what it was. And I find myself working on the interesting parts: product, user experience, novel algorithms, etc.