fair, but recipes aren't the only thing where AI summaries at the top of search results are simultaneously transformative and competitive. Any information that is scraped from a website and then summarized by AI in a way that prevents that website from getting views is both transformative and competitive.
Bartz v Anthropic. Though the plaintiffs did get something, it was because of the piracy to the original works (competing against the legal market for the books), not the use of them to train the LLM.
That would definitely limit damages to strictly those accounts.
I'm not even sure he can use his own account as one of them. The SEC might be pretty friendly to him but I'm not sure that limiting access to a location where material information about Tesla/SpaceX is provided won't become a problem.
But I'm not even sure what damages the accounts are suffering as revenue sharing is going away [1]. With Bartz the damage is a loss of sale. With X the damage is $0 per post to the poster.
There is a newer Original Content Rewards program [2] but it seems to split revenue from X Premium and presumably people that have X Premium are not using XCancel so the damages would be 0.
Very cool site! It's got some Claude-isms but they're not overwhelming which leads me to wonder: how did the author get the overall aesthetic to be so un-Claude-like?
Please point out the claudeisms, I want to clear them all.
V1 looked like complete Opus slop, but since I make many little sites all the time I can get it to undo a lot of them, one at a time. I just explicitly tell it the aesthetic to avoid per-element (like the famous left border), and eventually it looks okish.
Edit: Ah and for text, Standard Technical English is a good instruction to give it, but I also told it to be dry and technical, and no embelish or do storytelling. And some manual editing out of cringe stuff still after that.
I don't think you can fix the Claude tells without rewriting everything on your own - but I do read/write a lot for work, so I think about voice a lot. Here's a handful of sentences that I feel a human would not have used but which are common Claude constructions:
"the alarming ones that are harmless" - We don't put dependent clauses at the end of sentences like this except for unusual emphasis
'quietly' - overused by Claude
the entries here are the moments where the guesswork shows - same as first example
"none of this needs damage or disease" - Also would be written differently as a human. Just try saying some of these things aloud and you'll feel odd
People downvote me when I say we're back in the "Geocities era" / "indie web" of the 90's and 00's, but LLMs have enabled us to build cool side projects to completion and give them love.
This is 100% a good thing.
I love this website. It's fantastic. I don't care if it's AI. The world is better for it existing.
I agree that this is an example of interesting and good AI usage. The person who made it obviously put thought into it. Unfortunately a lot of vibe coded sites do not have that same level of care
What enabled people to build cool side projects in the actual 90's and 00's and what stopped them from doing it in the period afterwards but before LLMs?
A lot of effortful things deliver value, yet we call them slop. The Jurassic Park sequels, for instance.
One of the common tropes anti-AI people fall into is calling all AI-enabled works low effort. I'm refuting that point here, but you're right in that there's a broader discussion to be had as to what constitutes value to different demographics, individual tastes, and subjectivities.
There are highly discerning craftspeople with good taste who are both using and consuming AI works. This should not be disregarded.
I'll often run into one of those automatically generated YouTube videos, where the whole thing was done by ChatGPT (probably including the video idea itself).
Very often I will find it valuable or entertaining and continue listening.
Conversely, when listening to a high production YouTube video, I'll often (about half the time these days?) spot a ChatGPTism and instantly lose respect for the person. (Even if the video was valuable!)
So I guess I'm somewhere in the middle. "Fully automated AI generated content pipeline" doesn't disgust me as much as it probably should, whereas "guy left cringe ChatGPT language in his script" my neurology registers as an unforgivable crime.
---
Anyway the question of slop and effort is an interesting one. I've just spent several years working on a game and it's still shit. (Should have "iterated" more, apparently.)
Conversely, I often have the experience that I see some art that leaves me cold or that I actively dislike, but then I will discover that a heroic amount of effort went into making it (e.g. it's constructed out of a million individual toothpicks or something like that) and will suddenly think it's amazing.
My favourite story here is... a man in India spent 20 years carving a passage through a mountain by hand. By all accounts, it would have been much better if it were 20 minutes and a bit of TNT. But then he wouldn't be a legend, right?
Similarly I discovered an art page I enjoyed was fully AI generated. (Well, I don't know about the human involvement. Taste, maybe?) The art was still good, to my eye, but I noticed that I had been idolizing the artist — "how much toil it must have taken, to etch every stroke!" — and of course that part popped like a balloon.
I'll have to make due with the actual result, stripped of the glorious suffering!
People were already building cool side projects to completion and giving them love before AI.
You get downvoted for being weirdly ecstatic about AI "enabling" things that were already possible, while not caring about the human element that AI lacks.
People that say "things [...] were already possible" don't dream enough.
Maybe you were born a few decades too late. I feel I was born (a few decades?) too early.
I want the world with cures for cancer, holodecks, brain uploads, immortality, jet packs, surfing on Titan, etc.
I legitimately enjoy the future we're hurtling towards. It's the most exciting thing that has ever happened to our species. I hated the world where "Apple iPhones" were the pinnacle of human achievement.
We might be able to vibe engineer our own iPhones in a few years. That'll be fun.
The fact that people who couldn't program can now build utilities and automations for themselves is beyond remarkable.
And for those of us who can engineer, we're making 10x, 20x what we were before. I'm filling my life with all kinds of fun side projects, toys, games, utility software, automations. I don't look at libraries and software packages anymore - I just build what I need.
This is like 3D printing for software.
I've built my own SRS software, my own music library, my own project management software, several agents, a video editor, a few toy video games, home automation software ... and I've done this all in a month.
I am so excited about everything I'm going to be building. Time was a limit before. There is no limit now.
> FFS we've stood on the moon.
And we slept on that for nearly 60 years. We're about to build cities there. Finally.
>The fact that people who couldn't program can now build utilities and automations for themselves is beyond remarkable.
Learning to program has never been easier or more accessible. Being able to build a website has been accessible to non-techies for years. I'll admit using an AI is convenient but "beyond remarkable" is pushing it. If anything it's a bit of a tragedy. In exchange for that convenience people are buying into a closed, third party mass surveillance infrastructure generating code they can't understand, can't repair, can't edit or redistribute. From a FOSS point of view AI is objectively worse than what we had. And that's not even getting into the flood of slop and disinformation destroying the web.
>I've built my own SRS software, my own music library, my own project management software, several agents, a video editor, a few toy video games, home automation software ... and I've done this all in a month.
I can't imagine you needed all of this done within a month and couldn't find existing solutions for most of it. It seems more like you're addicted than being productive.
And I still don't see the line between you vibe-coding a productivity app something something holograms and brain uploads and surfing on Titan.
>And we slept on that for nearly 60 years. We're about to build cities there. Finally.
No, we aren't. We're no closer to than than we were 60 years ago. If you think Elon Musk is actually going to accomplish anything of the sort I think you're bound for disappointment.
I hear this a lot but such a perspective elides the novelty (and the actual question):
If I devise a mechanical device that semi-faithfully creates marks that convey information about a conversation - but which does not offer a way to replay the conversation whatsoever - does that constitute a recording subject to two-party consent?
If so, how does this relate to a potential decision to write notes about a call right after as a memo/in my diary?
If so, how does this relate to having my secretary record the conversation in shorthand while listening furtively to the conversation?
The term ''interception'' means to secretly hear, secretly record,
or aid another to secretly hear or secretly record the contents of
any wire or oral communication through the use of any intercepting
device by any person other than a person given prior authority by
all parties to such communication.
The term ''contents'', when used with respect to any wire or
oral communication, means any information concerning the identity
of the parties to such communication or the existence, contents,
substance, purport, or meaning of that communication.
If you get content, useful or otherwise, from the recording, you are violating the law. Unless you fall under one the exemptions, which you probably don't.
So first question, "devise a mechanical device" -- violates. Second, "write notes", no. Third question, "secretary record" -- no.
Right it does secretly record, because of the 15s buffer. "Record then delete" or "Record but can't access" is not acceptable, the law covers intercepting entirely.
Apple is banking on the transcripts-not-recordings and notification sounds (can't be disabled) to avoid it, but MA law is more strict.
I doubt "15s buffer" will hold up as "not a recording" and a notification that the recording is used 15 seconds later (during which a person could have walked away) won't be good enough.
AFAIK one problem is that the law is written to punish the recorder, not the provider of the technology. So it will likely slip by until someone makes a claim against an individual using it, and Apple will end up geofencing it.
One complication for geofencing is that the Mass law applies if one party is in the state. So if you're on a zoom with someone in Mass, you're still violating.
Fair enough, it seems the watch would be an 'intercepting device' and thus all parties would need to agree for any party to use the device for the summary function.
There seems to be a mass downvoting scheme on HN lately. I don't know who's behind it and what their motives are but I constantly see valid comments made within the last five minutes greyed out.
I would like to raise another question. If I recap a meeting onto physical paper, by hand, is it still considered a felony?
The point I'm trying to make by this exaggeration is that sometimes the information itself is private and recording that information causes issues as well.
e.g. a military personal taking a pen and paper and listing some secret information they know of, this piece of paper by definition is also subject to regulation that is supposed to keep secret information secure.
> Beyond the DNA we have the symptoms and lab work and I can usually narrow it down to a handful of guesses, but it sure would be nice to use this to help rank where to invest efforts.
This is exactly what the various DeepMind products have been for, and this simply aggregates them. Why are you unable to use this for candidate discovery when that's exactly what it's for? Is this because you do gene discovery in a commercial setting?
> The set of who can actually use this is pretty much null as it is. You cannot use it in a publication [...]
"You can *publish*, share and adapt output in accordance with the Terms, including the requirement to provide clear notice that (with the exception of the AVI Score) use is subject to AlphaGenome Output Terms of Use and of any modifications you make."
> , nor for any clinical purposes.
Of course they'll write this, there's no scoring tool that would advertise clinical utility unless they're charging you money
Just for improved thinnness; they're able to reduce about 2 mm from the thickness with the pins (and you can still technically use them for data transfer depending on how it's wired to the SoC).
This is junk both-sides-ism. I wasted minutes waiting for the delivery of reasonable studies that support and oppose daycare but ended up seeing the authors repeat the trope of dismissing studies of hundreds of participants wtihout trying to understand if the experiment was appropriately powered at that sample size.
I don't know your motivation, but your remarks do not match my reading of the article. The dismissed studies came from children in unrepresentative conditions (ignoring the fact that this kind of data is extremely noisy and that studies in social sciences are notoriously bad).
It's also not "both-sides-ism." The main anti-daycare fear mongering seems to center around the idea that it's bad for your children, but the opposite is suggested by the article.
When one conducts research, she selects a setting where an outcome is likely to be visible. For new drug approvals, one selects patients who are as sick as reasonably attainable (ie before unrelated secondary effects arise)
The fact that the very needy children benefit the most in no way implies that other children will be harmed. To make that statement without data is irresponsible for the authors, and I don’t see their data anywhere.
So this is essentially both-sides-ism. They present one reasonable if flawed idea and its totally unreasonable counterpart
You don’t take parenting advice from the Putin aligned, red meat only eating woman who arranged to have her father put into a coma by a sketchy doctor to treat his benzo addiction?
If we can’t take parenting advice from that family, who can we trust?
Recipes can’t be copyrighted
Here’s one discussion about this https://www.nycbar.org/reports/secret-ingredients-how-to-pro...
reply