The `render` binary weighed 4.0 MB on disk when I compiled it a few minutes ago. Not sure if that's what you were looking for, but just in case it is, there you go.

Here's the logs, if you want: https://gist.github.com/ethmarks/8df92a68c3076ea2f4a5aedba9f...

It's wildly confusing branding not only because they're identically-named things that both repackage OpenAI's LLMs, but also because they're both ultimately owned by the same company.

I can only assume that the conflicting naming convention was either due to sheer incompetence or because they decided that confusing users was advantageous to them.

[0]: https://youtu.be/zQTfuI-9jIo?si=3jwmhoB7zx6rclhb

It just depends on whether you think that the fact that they accept the risks is reason enough to let them fly a potentially-dangerous spacecraft.

Secondly, denial-of-service implies intentionality and malice that I don't think is present from AI scrapers. They cause huge problems, but only as a negligent byproduct of other goals. I think that the tragedy of the commons framing is more accurate.

EDIT: my first point was arguably incorrect because some scrapers do use decentralized infrastructure and my second point was clearly incorrect because "denial-of-service" describes the effect, not the intention. I retract both points and apologize.

It wouldn't work in every use case (what if you need to include a verbatim quote and don't want to make typos by manually typing it?), but it'd be useful when everything in the document should be your words and you want to remove the temptation to use LLMs.

I'm curious as to what you mean by this. I assume you don't mean it literally, as that would be trivially falsifiable (for example, the text readout on a digital caliper doesn't have "intents", yet it absolutely communicates meaning), but I can't think of another way that you might have meant it. Could you elaborate?

But yes, I agree that they're likely using human brain cells mainly because it's attention-getting.

I was under the impression that the relative intelligence of humans versus other animals was largely a function of brain cell quantity, not quality. Can 200k human brain cells really learn faster than 200k mouse brain cells?

A more cynical take is that they're just using human brain cells for shock value. They chose DOOM because of the "can it run DOOM" meme, so they clearly value publicity a lot.

I think that you're completely misunderstanding my objection here. I'm not in the least bit upset by people using "zip" casually to mean something other than formal ZIP files. I personally use "zip" as a verb to describe compressing to a tarball, for example. This is a technically incorrect usage, but it's okay for things not to be absolutely technically correct.

My objection is to \3, both to your summary of it and to the actual message content. godelski did not "indicate that they had used zip colloquially"; they accused sweetjuly (who fully understood that godelski was using the term colloquially and was simply making a humorous, playful, and lighthearted correction that didn't warrant further reply) of hyperfixating on the colloquial usage of zip. This is not only technically wrong (sweetjuly was "hyperfixated" on the technical definition, not the colloquial usage), but it's also accusatory and mean-spirited.

> Do you believe it served a useful purpose to double down and restate something that was very likely well known to both parties over a week ago?

Not in a strictly pragmatic sense, no. I intended to set the record straight by clarifying the factually accurate statement that ZIP is not a lossy format, which seemed to be contested. I didn't expect anybody to read my comment to an 8-day-old threat, nor did I expect anyone to reply to it barely 3 minutes later, nor did I expect to be drawn into a 7-reply-long debate about this.

Isn't it delightful how well we've proved godelski's original point about how fraught natural language is?