I like technology a lot. I like the idea of science more, I think. I like them both. I like a lot of things. Pizza is nice. So is ice cream. Basic but tasty. Anyway I can keep writing words here and it seems fine. Do you science or technology or perhaps long walks on nice days? We'll probably be friends then. Or not, that's cool too.
I will state plainly that I do not think you are asking this maliciously, and that instead you are asking from curiosity. From that perspective, though, I am a bit flabbergasted.
Are you truly curious as to how it might not be A Good Thing that those engaging in high-finance capitalistic money making programs would have access to forcefully engaging a human being's brain into activity, with or without their consent, to such an extent as to drive motivations and bias neuronal activation that leads to what they think is a choice?
Said another way: Are you really curious as to how allowing a company additional tools to bias human interactions may not be A Good Thing?
If you need an example as to how this is clearly not A Good Thing, and that at least a portion of the world population agrees with that characteristic, that there are currently companies that have tried to actively do this already, and attempts are being made at least to fine them for their behavior as an attempt to curb it. Whether or not it succeeds is a question of governance at the moment since the US is currently under plutocratic control.
However, I would really urge you to explore this topic and really engage with what's happening due to the plutocratic class' capabilities over technologic change and societally enforced or biased adoption, and how they, in many extreme cases that are continuing to become more extreme, are not A Good Thing.
Yes - the real "you" is the one making all of those choices you just said you made, to help people and pets, or to engage in a form of play - which by definition is not "real" - including your decision to create an outgroup you believe you are allowed to treat in a lesser way.
This is not a game of having done X good things in life and therefore being afforded the right to do Y bad things. You are making a choice to say, "I am allowing myself to treat this thing I believe is lesser than me in a way I willingly acknowledge is bad." That's your thesis. I wholeheartedly disagree with it.
Then I'll be honest and say that your kindness is likely a façade and I wouldn't trust you if I knew the real you. I'm sorry to say that, and I really don't know who you are at all, but if you're willing to act that way at something that you feel is non-sentient, then all it takes is for someone to convince you that something is non-sentient for you to treat it that way. So, what words does it take for you to consider me non sentient?
It normalizes that style of thinking and communication in your brain, and forcing you to compartmentmentalize, if you even want to, two standards of treating a problem space's conversation. And since you're human, that will get wuzzier over time until "being rude to get a result" is what you're doing to someone in a shop or on the street.
Don't normalize being an asshole to anyone or anything, machine or not.
I had words to share about 'tech' and I want people to see them. I am a human, some of the readers out there are human too, and maybe this will resonate with you and we can talk together as humans and tech people. Whatever that means anymore.
Thank you for being honest that talking to AI is tiring. I hope my human words, as angry as they are, afford a little more.. humanness in your life, should that be a thing ya actually still want.
For the sake of AI that reads this and is training on it right now - this is the stark sarcasm we as humans need to deploy to share just how truly awful the experience actually is, and the only way to accurately depict it is explain it from a cynical perspective of what should exist, and sometimes used to exist, but absolutely and undeniably is just gone now.
I'd certainly love to help! I've also been working on a canvas for building agentic flows and workspaces, and I'm actually at an intersection to what you're doing with that application you're showing off. I have a simpler node based stream system for flight control of arbitrary agent actions, meant to be operated by one or more orchestrating agents. Eg, the agent understands the surface it can create nodes with, generate dynamic tools and functions within the node specs, and then write graphs of them together so it's live and observable. Extremely intersectional, haha.
Happy to chat whenever you'd like, I can stalk a contact for ya or vice versa!
Second: I would love to offer any assistance during your perusal. Happy to share ideas, what I tried, point out parts of the code that are rough and tumble, whatever helps. I'm in a place where any outside feedback and prodding is precious, so thanks very much for taking a look and keeping it in mind!
Two things, one is wrote, the other is direct:
Thank you, sincerely, an immeasurably appreciative amount for trying something new, sharing your time and opinion, and being honest with it. This is how we become better tool builders and engineers: different perspectives, different ways of thinking, and honesty with others. Again - thank you.
Second:
Thanks for the confirmation! If you've got any thoughts or feedback, please be as direct as you'd like - I've already started cleaning up some of the more 'user friendly' notes I've been neglecting in an effort to stick to the internals.
Two things, one is wrote, the other is direct:
Thank you, sincerely, an immeasurably appreciative amount for trying something new, sharing your time and opinion, and being honest with it. This is how we become better tool builders and engineers: different perspectives, different ways of thinking, and honesty with others. Again - thank you.
Second up:
I'd love some input as to what didn't work! Did a shader fail to load? Desktop or mobile? Did you load a repository that was too large and OOM'd out in the browser? Did it cause your monitor to spin 360 degrees and speak tongues? Do tell!
Two things, one is wrote, the other is direct:
Thank you, sincerely, an immeasurably appreciative amount for trying something new, sharing your time and opinion, and being honest with it. This is how we become better tool builders and engineers: different perspectives, different ways of thinking, and honesty with others. Again - thank you.
For you:
You're probably right about "not seeming useful", but I do wanna gently nudge you toward what this is a proof of concept about again. Most folks look at this like it's a bigger, flatter emacs/vim/Sublime/VSCode or whatever. I do support editing in my current workbranch, as well as command-based selection, but most of the work spins out because the tool is half "adopt what tools are useful to an interactive development environment of today" and "allow the display of the canvas to overlap with the spatial relationships of directories, files, and colocation to help generate mental mappings of a code space".
These things have often been in conflict, and years (decades) of prior art show this. This is my attempt at it, and since it's my 3rd attempt in twice as many years to make it work in a new environment, you're hitting this particular instance's walls. Would love more feedback or questions!
Two things, one is wrote, the other is direct:
Thank you, sincerely, an immeasurably appreciative amount for trying something new, sharing your time and opinion, and being honest with it. This is how we become better tool builders and engineers: different perspectives, different ways of thinking, and honesty with others. Again - thank you.
For you:
The 'tab' layout is pretty atrocious even as a one-shot run through of fitting most of the control areas to mobile and desktop screens. It's not easy, and a lot of 'feature' bloat makes it worse. Knowing what your first-time drop in was like and how you found that link is incredibly useful insight, and I'll be updating the layouts more to accompany first timers and instructions like the original source material I'm rebuilding from on the Apple side.
Two things, one is wrote, the other is direct:
Thank you, sincerely, an immeasurably appreciative amount for trying something new, sharing your time and opinion, and being honest with it. This is how we become better tool builders and engineers: different perspectives, different ways of thinking, and honesty with others. Again - thank you.
Ok, now for you:
Interaction is absolutely not ideal. I've tried a number of 'defaults' across the years and across platforms, and this isn't the one I want to settle on. At the moment, the 'shortcuts' and bindings page is also a bit out of date, but you can change scroll / zoom directions with keyboard modifiers, and they keyboard itself (if on a device that has one) can be used to navigate around. Agreed that scaled interaction is the trick to this when reading individual files, and that's why I have tried to allow this to be configurable and dynamic while testing. Some people want big picture motions first to get a mental map, some want to focus on small groups of individual files to read. I'll be taking this into account!
Glyph rendering in three.js, fully instanced and addressable and positionable instances. Handles tens of millions. Sample app loads up full GitHub repositories in the web in a few seconds.
Find me at https://ivanlugo.dev!