This is the sort of thing I've wanted to write for a long time. Yes it looks like this is vibe coded but I'm glad this was made because it's cool to see what can be done, and it's interesting seeing how AI can be used as a compiler essentially given the output is assembly.
I'd be interested if the author would tell us more about what they did here and what went into the design and evolution, rather than the AI README.
Yep. So many people have been drifting away into some kind of parallel reality where language is seemingly the same, yet transmits no meaning between our diverging realities.
That too, but I originally meant literal human output, as in loss of ability to convey meaning with words in communication between people, no AI involved.
Don't overthink it, I think you are being a bit cynical. If your kid enjoys it then it's worth the money. If you can't afford that then find other things your kid enjoys.
The reward of a game is playing it, not the 'prize', although that can add to the enjoyment too.
As a parent you should absolutely think about what kind of expectations and behaviours you're setting up for the future if 'if they enjoy it then it's worth the money' is teaching kids. Sure it's not perfectly clear cut but not thinking about value at all does not end well.
I don't want media under control of billionaires like Musk. I mostly stopped using Twitter myself but many important institutions still feel compelled to publish there (sometimes even exclusively), thus I would like other people to also stop using it, so it can perish. Hopefully something better will fill that void. The Fediverse seems promising being a distributed system with no central control.
Yet that is a problem the owner of such a domain has freely entered into by buying that domain, it's their right to keep it despite this apparent problem, if they wish.
Understood, and .name isn't being used enough in business to worry about 'the effect it will have on my users'. Just pointing out that it doesn't work like the 'norm' (although I guess it's not quite as unique as I thought, either)
That's actually the point of the .name TLD is that it's not for businesses, it's for individuals. This whole situation demonstrates ICANN is more for businesses than individuals. It should just be there for everyone and every organisation that's trying to use URI's, shame that it's not worked out that way. This is exactly what the big tech companies want, they might as well hand ICANN over to Facebook or Google, they wouldn't do much worse.
I think you are partially correct. They trained AI on their articles to produce the same style articles. I am not a large consumer of BBC articles. This style of snippet after snippet is annoying. Perhaps that is why I am not a large consumer of BBC articles.
> Style Assist helps BBC journalists quickly adapt trusted content into BBC News house style, speeding up the publication of high-quality local stories. It uses a BBC-trained AI model to generate a draft, which is always reviewed and edited by journalists before publication. This helps save time while maintaining accuracy, tone and editorial standards. Find out more in an article from Rhodri Talfan Davies.
Style Assist is mainly for articles written by journalists that are employed by third-party news organisations (who own the UK's local news outlets) but are subsidised by the BBC - these people are "local democracy reporters".
LDRS articles are made free to everyone in the scheme (including the BBC), but because the content is written primarily for their home news org the articles that end up being published by the BBC need to be modified to comply with the BBC's editorial guidelines and for style reasons.
And I'll add that whether the style guide or the journalists, BBC articles tend to be like this: constantly saying sentences without giving the full context needed to understand them. This is why as a right wing person I tend to read The Guardian (famously left wing) instead of the BBC, because their articles just read better.
Really it's worse than exponential, because the size of the input is not n, it's the number of bits needed to store n i.e. log n. So as the number of bits k grow, it's growing phi^(2^k).
Big O analysis never implies size in bits. It's just often done. In this case, n is just the numerical value of the input, so I don't think this is correct.
If you want to measure growth based on another variable you are allowed to do so, but for most algorithms I'm more interested in the growth of time according to input size.
You said "really it's worse than exponential". But that's based on your own personally-interesting way of measuring n, which is inconsistent with the given way.
This is exactly the kind of spelling mistake ChatGPT makes if you ask it to make spelling mistakes to make text look more authentic.
What seems to happen is it will get a lot of words like curriculum wrong that people rarely spell incorrectly because they're long enough that if your English isn't confident you would look it up or use a spell checker, or spell words incorrectly that people don't usually spell wrong like 'imediate' or 'puzzel'.
Let it be known that this is a spelling mistake I have made for years. I thought I had rooted out of this article. It must have made it back in with later drafts.
I'd be interested if the author would tell us more about what they did here and what went into the design and evolution, rather than the AI README.
reply