> kinda the same technique Democrats want to use as well with their "pack the SCOTUS" campaigns. They want to shove a bunch more justices in there so they can get their way.
Did this take place? Or is it just a fear of a hypothetical?
Fear of packing the Supreme Court is a fear of something that the current parties have not done. There's an 1869 law that would have to be changed to pack it since that law sets the number of justices to nine. After that, they'd have to get their justices confirmed.
Well yes, but by republicans on Trumps behalf. Not allowing Obama to put a new judge forward in the last year of his term, and then allowing Trump to with even less time left in his term is just a chef's kiss of hypocrisy.
When people talk about packing the Supreme Court they're talking about adding justices so that one side (the one doing the nominating and appointing) gets a majority. It's not about filling vacancies (or blocking filling vacancies) to reach the current limit of nine justices.
Why would I read your book if you have not read your book?
Edit: I now understand what is going on here. This is an attempt to promote Zenflow. The GitHub account (https://github.com/amoilanen/) is Anton Moilanen who is an employee at Zencoder, the creators of Zenflow.
What was the point of first asking an LLM to expand prompt/"specs" into a book and then asking it to compress it back to a summary? Well, I'm glad you asked! To promote this Z*n tool, of course.
It was not the goal and I was posting in my personal capacity. I just used it together with Claude Code on my personal project. Because I work with it regularly it is natural that I used it.
I wanted to mention the tools I used including Claude Code. I hope it does not seem that I am here to promote Anthropic tools as well?
I just thought it appropriate to mention for the correct attribution, because the heavy lifting was done by the tools, not by me
It is your choice. I have read a good part of the book, also wrote a part of it and am in the process of finishing the review. The more reviews - the better. The book is officially in beta and this is fully transparent
The main goal of posting early was to gather feedback and peer review as soon as possible. I hope it can become a collaborative effort with external contributions.
The book is still a work in progress, and I have tried to be transparent about that. If you have specific concerns about the quality or suggestions for improvement, I would genuinely appreciate hearing them.
He's being dishonest. He's attempting to promote Zenflow (a tool created by his employer Zencoder). He's produced AI slop (that he has not even read!) as a vehicle to promote Zenflow and get it in front of eyeballs on HackerNews.
I am just referencing the tools I used (also Claude Code, by the way) because the bulk of the work was done by them.
This is what I was taught: work should be attributed correctly. If I would not mention the tools it would seem if the book was written entirely by me which is not the case.
This is a book which was started by me, I did use the AI tools I normally use in my daily routine on my personal projects. They are secondary in this post though.
I posted in my personal capacity and my employer is not aware or connected to this - the book is entirely mine.
It is not AI slop. A large part of its content was written originally by me 10 years ago.
But if it has offended anyone and I should not had posted the work which I have not fully yet reviewed myself, then sorry
Given how YouTube makes money from advertising, I suspect it's more profitable for them to keep the data to themselves and use it for targeting. I would not be surprised if they also share it with Adsense & other Alphabet entities (and presumably with government agencies), but am doubtful beyond that.
Not that this is much better than directly selling to third parties.
This sort of thing is common enough that simply establishing means, motive and opportunity are convincing to me. If not yet then soon. You can't hope for a smoking gun every time.
> Copyright infringement use to be the absolute worst crime imaginable if you asked the tech industry
Every day hundreds of links to archive.is are posted[1] to this website to get around paywalls. Technologists built file sharing tools to subvert copyright. It has never been one of the worst crimes imaginable in tech circles.
"Tech circles" was never the claim. The original phrase was "tech industry", and that seems to be accurate. The post replying to it may have misread or misinterpreted what "tech industry" means. (Or perhaps the term is simply ambiguous and each person who reads it comes away with a different meaning!)
> I've never met someone who wasn't on Aaron's side on that one.
This rather says something about the people by who you are surrounded. I know quite a lot of people who are on Aaron Swartz side here, for example people who are in academia or those who left academia but are still deeply interested in scientific topics.
Jstor is an information database provider that that specializes in the republication of academic journal articles. The web is the company's delivery mechanism, not the defining trait of the its existence. A public-facing website doesn't make it anymore of a tech company as such than it would the New York Times.
NYT is more of a tech company than you might think [1] and they've been one for longer than you might think: the de-facto standard profiler for Perl [2], of all things, comes from them.
Maybe the time horizon for a statement like that shouldn’t include the decades before most current tech companies existed, much less at this scale even for the few still kicking around from 50 years ago.
I am for moderation and strong penalties for users that use it in that manner. Anyone who uses grok to generate an undressing image of someone without their consent within 5 seconds should probably go to jail or whatever the penalty is for someone spending 5 hours to create revenge porn with photoshop.
But I'm not sure if the tool itself should be banned, as some people seem to be suggesting. There are content creators on the platform that do use NSFW image generation capabilities in a consensual and legitimate fashion.
Did this take place? Or is it just a fear of a hypothetical?
reply