Basically SETI for AI workloads? At least, this is the impression the landingpage left me with.

I am a bit lost, tbh.

I read the comment as being a satirical way of voicing critique.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49797248

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

I won't enumerate those details here.

The AI provider may also have account, payment, IP and conversation records connecting the generated code to you. An unrelated GitHub account and disposable email would therefore provide only superficial pseudonymity, not meaningful anonymity.

If attribution would create a material legal risk, I would assume the project is already attributable. A civil plaintiff could potentially seek records through discovery, and law enforcement could use the appropriate legal process. Getting actual legal advice before publishing seems safer than trying to anonymize it after posting this thread.

I also inherited some “regular” living room furniture after my mom passed away. It cost about four times as much as IKEA’s higher-end lines. After moving it from my mom’s place to my office, I can already see it falling apart after just three years (total lifetime as my mom only had it for two). The quality is so shite that I honestly wish my mom had bought IKEA.

In the future, I’ll either buy custom pieces from a furniture maker or choose IKEA's higher end lines for longevity and reusability.

Thanks for misrepresenting me. Or willfully miunderstanding me. But hey. No qualms here.

Just that I never said: > the idea that there is no subtext, that a text only communicates exactly what it lays out on the surface level.

Not sure though, what made you read that into my writing (and I am aware of the ironiy here). I actually read Barthes. And not only him. I actually used him and his ways of looking, together with thelikes of Genette and others when doing my thesis work (and before).

Because their depth and their way of looking at the depth within text was what fascinated me.

I always compared them to trying to understand the bones, the organs, the muscles and sinues of a text, compared to a surface level way we were taught in school. Combine that with a more culturally anthropologic way of looking at topics in literature and outside of it, more like Focault did (as an example) and my time in university was actually one that I cherrish deeply.

Edit: > Your teachers weren't trying to get you to fix on the one perfect interpretation, because that idea (Barthes would agree) doesn't really make sense. Instead, they wanted you to interpret, explain, and justify in a complex and ambiguous space.

I have to disagree here. My university teachers mostly did. In school, my experience sadly was quite different. In school there was in most cases and with most teachers only one correct way of interpreting a work of literature. Regardless how well you argued your interpretation.

But I actually love the discussion. Thanks for engaging my opinion.

Exactly. Still, that does actually not contradict what I wrote. You can still do this from a viewpoint of Structuralism, Formalism, Reader Centric Schools of Interpretation and Author Centric Schools of Interpretation.

Non of those are less intellectually" engaging with the work. Differently - and in my personal opinion more or less intellectually rewarding - yes. But not less or more.

But that is just me, having studied literatur and fallen into a school of literary studies that held Roland Barthes' claim of the death of the author [1] in high regard.

That might just be a German thing, but in school I hated the question of teachers asking: "What does the author wanted to tell us with this story." Because -> The author never wrote that down. And deriving their intentions from a fictional text felt just like making shit up. You either hit the interpretation of your teacher or received a bad grade.

So when entering university and learning, that to analyse a text, to understand how structures within a text enable us humans to interpret and generate meaning, regardless of what the author originally might have intended, was freedom to me.

To make a long story even longer: As long as the story is good - I don't give a rat's ass if an LLM wrote this, a monkey on a typewriter or a human being (or a group of authors writing under a pseudonym).

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_the_Author

In German: https://ht-strafrecht.de/blog/strafrecht/it-sicherheitslueck...

Our legal system in that regard is total BS, when it comes to the so called "Hacker Paragraph". This comes with a sentence tht can range from a fine to up to one year prison time, just for producing such a tool. So if the police would actually - even if they had not published it - computer... well. They could be potentially "f**ed" (depending on how a judge would decide).

Because I actually liked the idea of enabling people to read my handwritten notes. I just would not want to put that onto an external service, being more of a selfhost person...

The new models are shite (pardon my French), when it comes to long running tasks and I find myself more and more using open wheights models or switching back to gpt-5.5 for "real work".

This might be the fact, that i use them for non coding work. But the degradation between 5.5 and 5.6 is stark in my daily work.

As always with AI - everybody's mileage will vary.

I do not really like (even if it is my daily driver for a lot of things) gpt-5.x for text. It really needs heavy hand holding and beating it into submission to produce readable/human sounding text.

Tbh. I am still looking for my "go to model". But the Chinese models were for my use cases significantly better than openAI models and personally I liked them better than Anthropic ones as well.

I do, quite regularly. Because different models have different strength (for example when producing text for live presentations based on the text for a reading deck). Or when it comes to other aspects of the work. I regularly switch between open wheight models and closed models.

I know, I am a tiny minority here. And this behavior only ever started a few weeks ago. But it quickly became a habbit, to CTRL-L in pi and change the model.

Once you include getting out of Stockholm to the airport, security, boarding, the flight itself, possible baggage collection, and the trip into Umeå, I would be surprised if the total were much below 4 hours. Comparable German domestic flights such as Hamburg–Munich usually took me around 4–4.5 hours in practice in the past when traveling for work before the pandemic.

That makes the train a 6–8 hour alternative to a roughly 4-hour flight journey. Whether that is viable depends on the traveller, but it is certainly more competitive than “1 hour versus 8 hours” suggests.

I admit that for me, living about an hour north of the Hamburg main station but only 15 minutes from the airport, the plance for a business trip in Munich can still be a viable (albeit seldom taken) option. More often than not, if time permits, I take the train, work on the train. But as said - there still are situations, that make flying such a distance viable (to me).

I just wanted to point out, that it is not as clear cut as 1 hour vs. 6 to 8 hours.

Just my two cents.