I've found a common giveaway of AI writing to be having many unnatural pauses in sentences. For example,
A good architect’s most important skill isn’t designing systems. It’s knowing which systems not to build. It’s pushing back on complexity. It’s asking “why?” five times until the actual requirement emerges from the aspirational nonsense. It’s telling the CTO that their conference-inspired idea is a terrible fit for the team they actually have.
A normal person would've used ~2 sentences for this, even if it became a run-on sentence. You can feel the AI being very confident in what the prompter wants to get across, which is ironic, given that this is 2 paragraphs above:
AI agents are pathologically agreeable. Ask Claude if your idea is good and it’ll tell you it’s good. Ask it if a microservices architecture makes sense for your three-person team and it’ll explain why microservices are an excellent choice. Ask it if you should build a custom ML pipeline instead of using a managed service and it’ll enthusiastically lay out the design.
Semantic versioning is about versioning individual dependencies, no? The issue here seems to be about transitive dependencies, where different versions of the same package is used by multiple packages which depend on it.
uv's default being to always select the latest version seems to be what Clojure's tools.deps does.
I agree that SQLite requires less maintenance, but you still need to vacuum to prevent the database file from accumulating space (for apps, I run VACUUM at startup).
People still write applications in Objective-C (e.g., see Transmission [1]), and the language is still maintained to support the latest OS. If anything, Apple being the largest sponsor of Objective-C would suggest that you get greater vendor lock-in out of it than Swift, since you can at least use the latter outside of Apple platforms (e.g., on a server).
Side note, but thanks for the note about not using AI to write your articles. I'm tired of looking for information online, finding an article that may answer it, and not being sure about the author's integrity (this is so rampant on Medium).
I wouldn't consider any country in particular to be 'good if push comes to shove,' given that most exist to promote an environment where companies can easily make money. If a state feels like its status may be in jeopardy, it'll do whatever it can to maintain that relationship (e.g., the Dutch government seizing control of Nexperia from its Chinese parent company Wingtech). Consequently, it really doesn't matter whether push comes to shove for the US, China, Europe, etc. since the actions taken will stem from the same root (e.g., the US won't let Intel go bankrupt).
This is part of why I really don't think authoritarianism is relevant to whether or not China will lead in AI. There are much better metrics for this, like the amount of resources poured into research vs. applications, or the kind of research being done (open source, more than just LLMs etc.).
The question is whether or not American companies like Apple are controlled by the US government. Do you genuinely believe that, just because you can go to a court, that you're somehow free of control? Whether or not the state is authoritarian doesn't change that.
You must really have a distorted view on society to believe that companies can be free from their respective governments on the basis of freedom of speech, which is largely a western concept.
Believe it or not, that's the case I was thinking of when I asked, "just because they're allowed to criticize them?" A multi-national corporation like Apple having the freedom to criticize the US government doesn't mean that it has freedom from control, given that it's a US company. If Apple had similar criticisms during a much more critical moment (e.g., a war) or wanted to commit a critical act (e.g., transfer their chip design to be done primarily in China), they could very well find themselves subject to a clause in some vague, national security or espionage act.
Jack Ma was criticizing China's strategy for minimizing risk in its financial system, essentially arguing for more risk that could harm ordinary people to benefit his company, Ant Group. Unlike the US, much of the financial sector in China is state-owned, so it makes sense that they would follow the state's line. The worst that happened to him is that he had to step away from roles in his companies and stay out of public image, which is very different to the image of being disappeared.
Both of their companies are under their respective state's control. The only difference seems to be what you're willing to recognize as control, since I'm much more interested in what happens when push comes to shove.
Yes, but that's the case for any company under any state. Do you believe that Apple is not under the US government's control just because they're allowed to criticize them?
Last time I checked, China's state-owned enterprises aren't all that invested in developing AI chatbots, so I imagine that the amount of control the central government has is about as much as their control over any tech company. If anything, China's AI industry has been described as under-regulated by people like Jensen Huang.
A technology created by a certain set of people will naturally come to reflect the views of said people, even in areas where people act like it's neutral (e.g., cameras that are biased towards people with lighter skin). This is the case for all AI models—Chinese, American, European, etc.—so I wouldn't dub one that censors information they don't like as propaganda just because we like it, since we naturally have our own version of that.
The actual chatbots, themselves, seem to be relatively useful.
In my experience, software decoding AV1 requires a lot more CPU utilization than the equivalent for H.264 (~90% on your average 1080p video). It would likely be a death sentence to support on older devices.
In my experience, DB Browser for SQLite keeps the connection open in a way where an application that accesses the database may throw a lock error. Maybe it can be configured, but I haven't had that issue with Base.
A normal person would've used ~2 sentences for this, even if it became a run-on sentence. You can feel the AI being very confident in what the prompter wants to get across, which is ironic, given that this is 2 paragraphs above: