I read the release but didn't quite understand the difference between a next-edit model and a FIM model - does anyone have a clear explanation of when to use one over the other? I'd love if there was a sublime plugin to utilize this model and try it out, might see if I can figure that out.
I have an Olivetti Lettera 22 typewriter and it's the perfect machine, just immaculately designed. But one thing that absolutely floors me and I have no idea how they did it - is they have infinite, programmable tab stops on a completely manual machine (no electricity). So you can set as many tab stops as you want, and then hit the tab key and it will jump between all of the stops in order. It's great for creating lists of things or for creating simple tables. How the machine is able to remember your settings, and allow you to jump between and clear you tab stops completely mechanically is just so cool to me and seems like a marvel of engineering.
That's a pretty crazy requirement for something to be "useful" especially something that runs so efficiently on cpu. Many content creators from non-english speaking countries can benefit from this type of release by translating transcripts of their content to english and then running it through a model like this to dub their videos in a language that can reach many more people.
You mean youtubers? And have to (manually) synchronise the text to their video, and especially when youtube apparently offers voice-voice translation out of the box to my and many others' annoyance?
YouTube's voice to voice is absolutely horrible though. Having the ability for the youtubers to clone their own voice would make it much, much more appealing.
Uh, no? This is not at all an absurd requirement? Screen readers literally do this all the time, with voices that are the classic way of making a speech synthesizer, no AI required. ESpeak is an example, or MS OneCore. The NVDA screen reader has an option for automatic language switching as does pretty much every other modern screen reader in existence. And absolutely none of these use AI models to do that switching, either.
That doesn't really change what I said though. It isn't crazy to call it useless without some form of ALS either. Given that old school synthesis has been able to do it for like 20 years or so.
No? But is it not unreasonable to expect "state of the art" TTS to be able to do at least what old school synthesis is capable of doing? Being "state of the art" means being the highest level of development or achievement in a particular field, device, procedure, or technique at a specific point in time. I don't think it's therefore unreasonable to expect supposed "state of the art" text-to-speech synthesis to do far better at everything old-school TTS could do and then some.
> Being "state of the art" means being the highest level of development or achievement in a particular field, device, procedure, or technique at a specific point in time. I don't think it's therefore unreasonable to expect supposed "state of the art" text-to-speech synthesis to do far better at everything old-school TTS could do and then some.
Non sequitur. Unless the 'art' in question is the 'art of adding features', usually this phrase is to describe the quality of a very specific development, these are often not even feature complete products.
You posted the code to a public blog page, with no attribution in the code or request of attribution from others, no license, and seemingly intended to share it freely with the world.
Then you got an apology, and a second apology.
I'm confused about what you think you're owed?
The explanation makes perfect sense, the headers were obviously just copied with no malicious intent. What is it that is still bothering you about this?
> no license, and seemingly intended to share it freely with the world
No license means you don’t intend to share it “freely”, since you didn’t share any rights. By default, you don’t own things people shared on the internet just because it’s there.
That being said I’ve even seen people with licenses in their repos who get mad when people used their code, there’s just no telling and it’s best to just treat random sources of code as anathema.
I think GP is referring to the fact that an author’s work is copyright protected by default, and a license is needed to permit others to use freely [1]. StackOverflow posts are licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 [2].
(Disclaimer: Just commenting on GP’s statement about “no license”, not on the specific disagreement or apology mentioned above which I am unfamiliar with.)
It's worth noting that the code in question was also open sourced and permissively licensed by the original author as he stated in the thread[1]. I guess this isn't really about licensing at all, just the original author seems to think it was rude, and also doesn't want to accept any of the apologies that have been offered.
> with no attribution in the code or request of attribution from others, no license, and seemingly intended to share it freely with the world
The bottom of every page on my blog has a copyright link that you can follow. I dedicated the code to the public domain. I never made a copyright claim. I simply asked Addy to not claim to authorship of the code.
Just wanted to maybe provide a slightly different perspective, but I recently went through this process of pulling back from being socially active and it was for more than just one reason.
I wanted to focus on my health, both mental and physical, this meant going to the gym every morning and making time to read and getting rid of social media.
I also wanted to reduce my consumption of alcohol which typically was fueled by social events and always seemed to throw a wrench in taking care of my health (hard to get to the gym in the morning when you were drinking the night before, and for me it was even after just 1 drink).
What I realized was that many of the people I was spending time with, they oriented their communal time around drinking and for me that's pretty detrimental to my goals. After pulling back from social activity, I've felt so much healthier, happier and optimistic about life.
I get the same exact phone calls as you're describing, and I generally weigh the events I'm being invited to with what the focus of the event is - if the goal of the event is to just get together at a bar, I don't go. I think many of my friends feel that I've lost my way, but it's difficult because I sort of see them in the same light.
What I do hope to do eventually is to cultivate some new friendships, because I am missing that social aspect of my life, but for now I've sort of got a good thing going and I'm not too concerned about rushing it into being.
Does it seem, I'm not sure, ironic maybe? That the main example here is "An app that writes blog posts" - "Researches a topic and writes a blog post about it" - that the company who helped champion the network effects of the internet and surface truly useful search results is now helping to destroy that very same thing they built their entire business on?
Different teams. This AI team at Google cares not for the health of the web. They barely remember that Google has a search engine, except of course for the groudbreaking AI search results which are responsible for many large numbers for use in annual reviews. This team's goal is to sell their AI solution, and if that means demonstrating its ability to generate tools that create crap content that harms the search engine results, well, I'm sure another AI solution can probably combat that later.
Google Search has like 10 years of history of doing its best not to get you to click on a search result, but to answer your question directly or at the very least keep you on their platform while screwing over website owners.
The first two iteration of this were AMP and Instant Answers, the third one is AI Overview. AI Overview should not be seen in isolation, but as a part of the pattern. If it weren't for it, Google would double down on some other method of reaching the same goal.
This one will end up the same way the other two did: there's gonna be a vocal minority that's gonna consider it unfair and a web killer, the vast majority of users won't have an opinion, Google will not care, "the web" will play along, those early adopters are temporarily gonna have an advantage in this "new age" and some will die in the process, but the vast majority is gonna continue on as if nothing happened.
It's also not gonna be the final iteration of this process because shiny new things sound better to investors than marginal improvements, so X years from now AI Overview is gonna be seen as something "old-fashioned", Google Search will pivot once again, and the rest of the web will follow to keep Google happy.
> the vast majority of users won't have an opinion
They're here, they don't care how they get from point A to point B, the tech used to achieve that result is completely irrelevant to them. AI? Great. Not AI such as the Instant Answers era? Also great. Average Joe does not spend his time thinking about the economics of the web.
But you shouldn't confuse them finding "AI" useful now with them being attached to it long term. It's a hip new tool now, but the novelty will fade and Google will have to re-invent themselves all over again. If anything, they kinda screwed themselves over by calling this "AI". AI is supposed to be something within reach, but always some years away. By wasting that term for the current era, it's gonna suck so hard to think of a new marketing term that's gonna be seen as an improvement in comparison to the term "AI".
Which is saddening as the first thing I think when I see this overview is "How do I verify this statement is correct" and paradoxically it sometimes just slows me down.
Yeah hate to say it, because I am an AI hater, but I love the AI results in Google and Kagi. I barely click results anymore for basic questions unless it's something important enough for me to need verification to ensure the AI-gen answer wasn't a hallucination. It's been so nice not having to pick through the cesspool that is StackOverflow to find answers to quick cli questions, or wade through SEO-generated, Amazon-affiliate link garbage for more general questions.
This is what the vast majority of users will do of course. The issue people have with it is that it breaks the "social contract" of the web, which is that part of the advertising income goes to the site that provided the information the answer is based on. That, by destroying that income, "overviews" (now including AI overviews, but that's not where it started) are destroying first publishers and I'm sure it'll go all the way through until Youtube is entirely destroyed as well.
Of course, it does not destroy Google's income ... and it destroys the promise Google made long ago, which is to never keep users on Google platforms.
Oh and to add insult to injury, want to bet Opal will force app developers into what you probably never even imaged would happen on the web? Pay-per-view. Not for a video. For a website/app.
> This AI team at Google cares not for the health of the web. They barely remember that Google has a search engine
Neithet do any teams at Google, including the search teams. Google is an ad company with 80% of its revenue coming from ads. They couldn't give two shits about the health of the web.
That contradicts the long-standing claim that Google does care about as many people using as good a WWW as possible. A ghost town has plenty of ad space, but not much ad revenue.
Arguably the ad business is to blame. It created a perverse incentive. They maximized pay-to-play. The losers were authors that previously published on a passion budget (and would/could never pay for ads). AI is just the last nail in the coffin.
I dont think so. They also triggered SEO race where businesses pump out same bland blogposts to optimize ranking. Content made by humans for those companies was the only viable way at that time, and now new synthetic method emerges - whatever generates revenue will win. AI reels and tiktoks get views, so why bother with human generated content after the training on models have been done? Sad but true.
That's a good point, we had sort of the precursor to this already and yea likely driven by google themselves. It seems that every time incentives are aligned purely for profit we end up with situations like this where they inevitably run a good thing straight into the ground.
Funny, I remember the Internet from over a decade (or two) ago and it was a mess of full-screen ads, seizure-inducing animations, infinite popups, etc. that Google helped eliminate.
Google didn’t eliminate malicious ads - adblockers and easylists did that.
I hate to break it to you bud, but the full-page ads never went away - they just look like content now. You know why you need to scroll for 9 pages to see the ingredients to a recipe?
Google created the pageview driven business model that incentivized the internet to be filled with hostile UX, low-quality lists of paged content, affiliate spam, etc.
We could break their back if we required them to respect trademarks.
Google captured the browser with 92+% "browser -> search" funnel market share.
They turned the URL bar into "search", meaning that the method of finding trademarked companies and products now flows through a competitive bidding marketplace where competitors can slide in front of your hard-earned brand.
> that the company who helped champion the network effects of the internet and surface truly useful search results...
The amount of data on the web crossed the threshold of organic discoverability some time before the AI boom started. AI makes it go from really bad to really, really bad (99% to 99.99%). As far as I am concerned it doesn't change anything.
The same mechanisms to find good content would work today as well - following humans and networks.
If they store both the generated content and the eventual indexed location, they could now filter search results more comprehensively based on content hashes.
It'd be great if you could add it to Kiwix[1] somehow (not sure what the process is for that but 100rabbits figured it out for their site) - I use it all the time now that I have a dumb phone - I have the entirety of wikipedia, wiktionary and 100rabbits all offline.
I use the Mudita Kompakt specifically cause it allows sideloading so I can still have a few extras. Right now I have Kiwix and Libby. It works really well.
I have a $10 a month plan from US cellular with only 2gigs so I try to keep everything offline that I can.
Honestly it's mostly the news... so I draw the line at browser, I'll never install a browser, that's basically something I can do when I sit down at a PC. I read quite a bit and I like to have the ability to look up a word or a historical event or some reference from something I read using Kiwix and it's been great for that, just needed to add a 512gb micro sd card. And Libby I just use at the gym when I'm on the treadmill.
I also want to make sure we can build this in CI. My goal is to have this updated every day using the BigQuery update process, so it becomes a 1–2 day delayed static archive of the current state of Hacker News, which is honestly very cool.
I can probably run the build for free on GitHub Actions runners, as long as the runner has about 40 GB of disk space available. If needed, I can free up space on the runner before the build starts.
I’ll also write to GitHub support and ask if they can sponsor the cost of a larger runner, mainly because I need the extra disk space to run the build reliably.
I was interested to try Date.now() since this is mentioned as being the only part of the Date implementation that is supported but was surprised to find it always returns 0 for your microquickjs version - your quickjs variant appears to return the current unix time.
Good catch. WebAssembly doesn't have access to the current time unless the JavaScript host provides it through injecting a function, so the WASM build would need to be hooked up specially to support that.
reply