The alternatives are not horrible, but look like I’m being lured to a Spring Fair by an alien. It makes no sense to associate with Japanese imagery or 90s computer graphics for an event that has nothing to with these topics. Design is a language and these speak gibberish.

The Spring Fair is a lorem ipsum, here.

They asked the AI for a list of different styles.

The author then picked them out, not the AI. For curiosity I assume.

I love the idea of using unexpected styles. I think it can be very creative. I appreciate it if someone does that deliberately as a humor.

You mostly go for „Bar” only after you already went „Foo”.

Intent and desire are separate concepts. For example an employee may act with intent, but no desire, as their goal is to acquire money to satisfy their real desires.

Have we ever seen an LLM with a hobby?

Some of them did seem to be rather fascinated by goblins for a bit, if that counts. [And in case you're not aware, no this is not a joke.]

That just sounds like recursive desire to me.

In some places it's shameful to show one's hair, or to eat while you walk in public. In some, people don't think about those things at all. In others, the ability to do those things can be an expression of personal freedom.

What you experience is a cultural difference.

Well, not quite. Not showing your hair or not eating in public may have meaning in somebody's culture/religion, but it doesn't hurt anyone else either way. Playing video/music without earphones does. And surely people must have experienced it from the other side when people nearby were playing music they didn't care for. I think it is reasonable for people to ask themselves "Would I like it if someone near me did <X>?", and if the answer is 'No' to not do it themselves. Maybe this is "shame" or maybe simple empathy.

Eating in public places not mean for eating subjects others to the smell of your food in the same way that listening to something on speaker subjects them to unwanted sound. Hijabs are more indirect but I would disagree that it doesn't affect others.

Have you traveled Latin America? Loud audio in public is so normal there that immigrants to Europe often can't see what all this fuss is about when people complain about loud phones on public transport. This is very much a mutable cultural thing.

> What you experience is a cultural difference.

In that not all cultures recognize causing negative externalities as a bad thing?

Negative externalities is culturally dependent. The Japanese consider the sight of a person eating while walking to be a negative externality. Are we going to start complaining here on HN about people doing it? No, we recognize that those taboos vary across time and space.

The difference is some taboos are just based on tradition, and others are based on actual damage. Nobody is hurt by seeing someone walking and eating -- they can just not look at them and the problem is solved. You can't not just hear the noise people inconsiderate not to use headphones make.

In cultures where the sight of certain things is taboo, telling a local person that they have to direct their gaze elsewhere feels as much of a rude imposition as someone's phone audio reaching your ears. Please try to step beyond your own cultural upbringing and realize how arbitrary and mutable all these things are.

But then people get angry if you don't want those "cultural differences" in your daily life. And when people question why you prefer private transportation.

My own observations are that I used to target turn lengths of 10-15 minutes and these new models (since 5.6) extended that a bit to ~25 minutes, as they tend to do more tests and reviews. Targeting hours-long turns makes as much sense, as putting on cruise control and going to sleep.

They are probably using Actual Indians. If it takes 25 minutes you can just type the code yourself.

Even if they’re on a path to make economy obsolete, they still need money right now to get there.

It would make sense to make it possible, but increasingly expensive to extend the copyright. It's fine for Disney to keep their successful creations, it just makes no sense to drag all other copyrighted works in existence along for the ride.

You want to tip the balance even more in favour of the richest corporations? Really?

We're there already, considering the cost of actually enforcing your rights, but it would be bizarre to codify that into law.

There's a class of programming/configuration tasks where I specifically use AI because it makes less errors than I do.

Yes but it will make other kinds of errors you wouldn't make.

Uncanny valley. LLMs are great at producing text that reads almost right.

It’s not specific to this program, but I lately get this feeling that distributing widely a piece of software that exists for 5 days and saw a dozen releases in that period is stretching the open source trust model.

Think of something nerds will like (like this!), package malware, distribute, profit. That's the idea, right?