• 9 Posts
  • 4.78K Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 9th, 2023

help-circle
  • 4, because I work partly remote so there have been occasions where I have no reason to leave the house or see another person for four days. I’m introverted so it’s kind of nice, but it’s probably not healthy

    Edit: and my dog is not mine: I share custody with my ex (it’s actually her dog) so that’s only half a week


  • Yeah, I suppose so. I find plenty to hate about the way companies and too many individual apps talk about LLMs. I really hate that it’s one of the metrics my employer looks at. I always hate how wasteful speculative bubbles like this are.

    But maybe this isn’t the place for me since I see some good use cases and appreciate the few times someone does it right.

    • I hate how companies like Google and Microsoft are putting LLMs everywhere, making things worse for everyone, forcing everyone to deal with it
    • I find it strange that there’s an LLM in my car but it Carrie’s a decent conversation and it can’t actually do anything
    • I like this approach of building the mcp server. Keeping it read only, keeping it optional, and leaving the actual LLM open. I also like Apples approach where they seem to care about privacy, about executing on device, and about taking their time to put it in useful places



  • AA5B@lemmy.worldtoFuck AI@lemmy.worldRed Hat pushing AI
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    12 hours ago

    Seems like everyone taking a left turn into crazy ville ……

    This is a good approach.

    1. It’s an mcp server, a “bridge”. A standard way LLMs could talk to your system. It’s not an LLM. It doesnt mandate an LLM. It doesn’t tie you to a specific LLM
    2. It’s optional. Don’t use it, or don’t install it. No harm done. Even if it’s installed and running, if you don’t use an LLM with local access, no harm done.
    3. Even the increased attack surface is not a big deal since it is local, optional, and focuses on reading statuses rather than executing actions
    4. It’s an open standard. If you decide to use it with an LLM but don’t like the results, try a different LLM



  • Every attempt to make something idiot creates a bigger idiot

    While I totally see the point this is already “solved” in that they shouldn’t have high beams on in the first place.

    Pedestrians and cyclists are tough because drivers don’t think to toggle their high beams, even If they see pedestrians and auto-high beams aren’t any better. We’re out of luck

    In my neighborhood we have very narrow streets and where there are sidewalks not pavement right next to the street. I never thought I’d appreciate the small amount of separation a standard sidewalk give but it actually does make a difference in how blinded your u are by traffic. But the bottom Line is similar to yours: this is a high density neighborhood with streetlights where no one should use high beams to begin with. Realistically there are several Poorly placed houses whose owners are probably even more frustrated



  • At least in Manhattan, traffic is usually slow enough that pedestrians are at least as fast. Also they tend to go as a crowd. I’ll usually wait for the light but when hundreds of other pedestrians swarm into the street I figure we’re fairly visible and safe.

    I would never drive in Manhattan simply because it’s the slowest and most frustrating way to get around. I used to drive around queens when I had a girlfriend there but we’d always take a train around the city, and I’m sure traffic has only gotten worse. It’s just not worth it


  • This may be another case of needing technology to rescue people who are just that dumb.

    • Auto-high beams have been getting better over the years to the point that humans can no longer claim to be more responsive. They just work. Every time. And never forget
    • my car has active matrix headlights and it’s freaky to drive at night with the high beams on and watch a dark spot follow surrounding cars

    In ten years we’ll all forget how to toggle off high beams, as it will just work most of the time. But at the same time we’ll be blinded less as the machine never forgets


  • My similar anecdote is people taking a right on red without stopping (or apparently looking), and would probably be included in those statistics. Since there may be a pedestrian or cyclist just around the corner you can’t see until you’re at the intersection, stopping and looking is critical for safety

    I used to be a proponent of right on red, because who wants to be stuck at a dead intersection? If you only consider cars, it’s a nice efficiency gain. But now non-car users like pedestrians and cyclists don’t have a safe time to cross the intersection. And it’s so much worse now that people turning right on red seem to have forgotten the parts about “after coming to a complete stop” and “yielding to other traffic”