Because with federated services people don’t have to host an activitypub server, you can join a federated instance that someone else maintains.

The typical Twitter user balked at just selecting a mastodon instance when they signed up in the app… similar issues for reddit users looking to come to lemmy. If you think that they’re going to be willing to go and set up and manage their own server, even on a free hosting site, you’re wildly mistaken.

If you don’t think you need the normies on your social network anyways, I have no polite way to tell you that most people want to join social networks with their friends.

Maybe? But I wouldn’t hold my breath.

I mean, it’s the best option you have, but that doesn’t make it a good option.

It’s ephemeral because now you’re demanding that everyone stand up their own web-addressable servers that the rss readers can search, if they want their own content to be searchable. Which isn’t going to happen. So in practice, it’s going to be either federated, or ephemeral.

Why do we advocate for, and pour hours of development into, ActivityPub rather than

Because that’s what the devs are interested in doing. If you’re going to ask anyone, ask them.

a big thing you’re missing is discovery of old content and searching. You’re describing a purely ephemeral social network. Activitypub itself can’t solve that, but this is why federated networks exist instead of purely P2P.
Maybe some people want that, after all Snapchat became popular. But it wouldn’t work for something like Lemmy.

MicroHondas?
Bro I think that’s just called a civic

The microFloridians translate it for him

This will be fantastic during the apocalypse and we lose Internet.
Too bad I’ll have lost the Internet so I won’t be able to learn how to get the equipment and set it up, until it’s too late

So you can try your prompt again. Also to avoid getting stuck in loops of repeated text. Getting stuck down a bad line of “reasoning”. Etc.

Low chance of error comes with low chance of error recovery, conversely high chance of error comes with high error recovery ability (mostly just talking about temperature and top k, here)

Yes, that’s why it’s necessary for it to be non-deterministic. Without non-determinism, there is no error recovery if it chooses the wrong token somewhere in the middle of the completion. That’s much less useful.

I prefer to coach my enthusiasm for the productivity improvements.

If all you’re using it for is to find the relevant parts of the relevant documentation, then a vector search would do as well.
What an LLM can do is synthesize readable docs out of poor or missing docs. When it isn’t hallucinating, that is.

But I don’t actually see anyone using LLMs just to cut through the docs, they’re using it to code. And the results I’ve seen are pretty mixed. It does seem to help ramp up in a new area, but it also seems to become an impediment to moving past the ramp-up phase.
Beginners can now produce beginner code at 2x the speed, and senior folks can now produce beginner code at 3x the speed. But nobody is producing senior level code.

Plus, you know… All the ethical and socioeconomic concerns.

Code is the highest level from which deterministic output can be derived.
It is the unambiguous spec of the application.

I’ve seen talks from people at openAI talking about how you should treat prompts as specs, and that a good spec can generate the code you need, so the important thing to keep is the spec (prompt).
But LLMs are necessarily non-deterministic, it’d be like every time you compiled the code, you got a different app that fulfilled the same purpose. That’s not really useful.
And if you make the spec unambiguous enough that it always generates undistinguishable apps, well then congratulations, your prompt is just as complex as the code is, except you don’t have any kind of static checking and compiling takes orders of magnitude longer. You might as well just be writing code.

Now will coding look very different in the future? Maybe. I hope not, but it’s looking like it will.
But I don’t think we’ll get to a place any time soon where people write prompts and never fuck with code.

In amongst then pack, it seems

I think you’re going to have a problem keeping your power supply floating in the air like that

Look here, pedantry is my business.

I didn’t mean literally mad. I mean people are telling me something that I’m wrong for something that I didn’t say, and that I went out of my way to make clear I wasn’t saying, and they’re doing it in a belittling way. So yes, my feelings are hurt.

But meanwhile I still didn’t say it, and I made clear I wasn’t saying it, and you’re still being belittling and telling me that’s what I said.

Maybe the problem isn’t that I’m wrong about what a fruit is, and the problem is that you (and whoever else) misread what I wrote. In which case, why are you still telling me I’m wrong about what a fruit is? And if that’s not what you’re doing, then what are you doing?

I didn’t make my argument clear, for sure.
The initial person called the dry fruit a seed.
Then the other person countered with an example of a fruit with a single seed where you don’t call the whole fruit the seed. But importantly they didn’t establish why the first person should consider those two things the same. The first person simply didn’t accept that the dry fruit was a fruit in the first place, so using another, typical, fruit for example isn’t going to help.

My example was trying (ineffectively) to show that it appears as an apples/orange comparison unless you already understand.

But now, despite explicitly saying I know that a strawberry isn’t a berry in my original reply, I’m being told that I’m disagreeing with science, rather than with their example.

You’re having a different discussion than what I’m trying to make.

Im aware of the difference between botanical and culinary definition. Im aware a strawberry isn’t botanically a berry. Im aware a pumpkin is a berry. I’m aware that raspberries are accessory fruits, that peanuts aren’t nuts, etc.

I’m saying that your peach example isn’t going to illustrate that difference to someone who doesn’t already get it.

I can admit my feelings get hurt when someone gets mad at me for something I didn’t say.

Can you admit your failure in reading comprehension?
Can you at least point out where you think I said that strawberry “seeds” aren’t the actual fruit, so that I can know how I was unclear about it?

Apologizing doesn’t affect their guilt or lack thereof.

Canadians are allowed self defense within reason

That’d be a really great point, if that was even anywhere close to what I said in the comment that got down voted.

So what am I to take from this reply? That people on Lemmy are functionally illiterate? That they can’t distinguish between criticism of an example with criticism of an argument?

Ah I see. That makes a bit more sense.

But I still don’t think that’s a great company the example, because I believe what they were actually saying was that just because it contains a see doesn’t make it a fruit, in the same way that if you see a shelled peanut with the husk on, you wouldn’t call it a whole fruit.

I know they’re wrong, but I don’t think that your counter example addressed what their confusion was.