Is it about the haphazardous deployment of AI generated content without revising/proof reading the output?
Or is it about using some graphs without attributing their authors?
if it's the latter (even if partially) then I have to disagree with that angle. A very widespread model isn't owned by anyone surely, I don't have to reference newton everytime I write an article on gravity no? but maybe I'm misunderstanding the angle the author is coming from
(Sidenote: if it was meant in a lightheaded way then I can see it making sense)
did you read the article? this is explicitly explained! at length!
not at all about the reuse. it's been done over and over with this diagram. it's about the careless copying that destroyed the quality. nothing was wrong with the original diagram! why run it through the AI at all?
Other than that, I find this whole thing mostly very saddening. Not because some company used my diagram. As I said, it's been everywhere for 15 years and I've always been fine with that. What's dispiriting is the (lack of) process and care: take someone's carefully crafted work, run it through a machine to wash off the fingerprints, and ship it as your own. This isn't a case of being inspired by something and building on it. It's the opposite of that. It's taking something that worked and making it worse. Is there even a goal here beyond "generating content"?
I mean come on – the point literally could not be more clearly expressed.
The thing is, in this context "editing text" is seen as the one job, that one tool should do.
So when you're working with multiple applications, all of which are trying to force you to use their own way of editing text, it feels highly fragmented and un-unixy
I do understand what you're saying, it's just that I wish the text editing portion of most of these tools is abstracted to a degree that allows for my text-editing tool of choice to be used within it
Side question: does anyone else feel like the quality of openclaw (as a tool) is extremely low?
Their logging seems to be haphazardous, there is no easy way to monitor what the agent is doing, the command line messages feel unorganized, error messages are really weird.. as if the whole thing is vibe coded? not even smartly vibe coded..
Even the landing page is weird, it takes one first to a blog about the tool, instead of explaining what it is, the getting started section of the documentation (and the documentation itself feels like AI slob)
* Clear labeling of action types (read/get vs write/post)
* A better way of describing what an agent is potentially about to do (based purely on the functions the agent is about to call)
* More occurrences of AI agents hurting more than helping in the current ecosystem
Feels AI-ish as well, and OP used em-dashes in some of their replies. But it could be attributed to a language barrier of sorts requiring the use of LLMs to communicate
I think ignoring AI, some Tax formula could be found that uses the number of employees in a company compared to some measure of the economical size of the company.
(With the goal of pushing the company to create jobs proportional to its scale, or pay an additional Tax equivalent to the number of employees they could've payed for)
not sure what you mean. the only "knowing" (that we know of) is when a piece of the universe has an incomplete model of some other portion of the universe which it uses to make predictions (and i suppose toward the same goal, remember the past) in any case, the only pieces of the universe (in turn the only universe we know) are computing all the time. atoms, subatomic particles, are not static, they are interacting all the time.
Exactly.. If your medical condition requires you to consume protein instance, and there are no sources of protein around (at reasonable prices), and you die out of starvation. How is that not a legitimate case?
Is it about the haphazardous deployment of AI generated content without revising/proof reading the output?
Or is it about using some graphs without attributing their authors?
if it's the latter (even if partially) then I have to disagree with that angle. A very widespread model isn't owned by anyone surely, I don't have to reference newton everytime I write an article on gravity no? but maybe I'm misunderstanding the angle the author is coming from
(Sidenote: if it was meant in a lightheaded way then I can see it making sense)
reply