Oh wow I didn't know about this, thank you. The underlying feature is called "readline vi-mode" for folks who want to search more about it.

I wish my GPL license would transit along with my code.

I said it few years back that code license doesn't exist anymore, some people just haven't realized it yet.

Previously, big tech used to still somehow find loopholes for GPL and licenses still had some value.

Nowadays, It genuinely feels a lot less because there are now services who will re-write the code to prevent the license.

Previously, I used to still think that somewhat non propreitory licenses like the SSPL license etc. might be interesting approaches but I feel like they aren't that much prone to this either now anymore.

So now I am not exactly sure.

If you are wholly confident that model training is a violation of the GPL then go sue.

I guess freedom of study and use may include also training AI, but would be cool if all the derivate work, as AI models and generated code from AI models should be licensed as GPL, layers needed here

Web standards have rich support for incremental/chunked payloads, the original node APIs are designed around it. From this lens the Node APIs make sense.

If there is no mutually assured destruction, Israel has lower bar than many other countries to use these weapons which is pretty scary.

They are doing experiments and seeing what takes off.

In academia there has been a widespread practice to simply include a sentence about how AI has used in articles. It's simple and it works well.

Yes. Can someone tell me why even HN has bots. For selling upvotes to advertisement purposes?

I'm not a bot and definitely not advertising - I'm new on HN and trying to contribute with a few comments where I can.

Someone compared LLM in 2020s to GUI in 80s and 90s. Graphical interfaces didn't replace text interface, but it just became additional to it.

Perplexity supports sharing URL to the thread. I think it's quite natural to link AI summaries like that.

I do not want to see posts to AI summaries with the AIs the way they are now. None I have used so far can cite sources correctly or verify its information. If the poster is not doing that verification then it is pushing that work on to the readers. If the poster did do the verifications than posting that verification is better than the ai summary.

How long do those links exist though? Until the author deletes it?

> I think it's quite natural to link AI summaries like that.

I think you misspelled "convenient". More than the small effort that it takes one to share generated text, one has to consider the effort of who knows how many humans that will use their time to read it.

If a LLM wrote something you don't know about, you're not qualified to judge how accurate it is, don't post it. If you do know the subject, you could summarize it more succinctly so you can save your readers many man hours.

If LLMs evolve to the point where they don't hallucinate, lie, or write verbosely, they will likely be more welcome.

I'm a bit confused about these replies. The user was talking about posting AI summaries in HN comments. I suggested that posting an URL may be better choice.

I thought you were saying it was easy to share the chat session, not a generic URL the LLM used as source. If the second was the case, please disregard my comment.

Yeah can't find much information either. I would like to see at least some proof. Either via Mckinsey or from the security team.