Because lines of code interact with each other. Understanding what one line does in isolation does not always show the rough edges that are found when code interacts. The challenge is seeing the forest instead of individual trees.
For something that is as personal as a keyboard, it would be good to know what "Usage data" you are collecting and how it is used. I am eager to switch away from ios keyboard, but I do not trust most developers to have access to what I type. I understand it is "not linked to me", but this is an area where heavy skepticism is warranted.
Hey, we're super transparent about the data we collect.
We collect zero data about your typed words, personal dictionary data, stored contacts, clipboard history and basically anything else that's privacy-sensitive.
What we do collect is very generic and fully anonymized metrics such as: Do you use a theme, did you modify the keyboard, did you add an emoji key to your keyboard, etc.
We are not interested in typed words or any private data. We just want to know how people use the keyboard in general (which features in particular), and that's all we collect. You can opt out at any time, and all collected data is automatically deleted every 30 days because we only keep a 30-day rolling window.
If you want to be extremely safe, you can also skip enabling full access for the keyboard, which makes it impossible for us to send data from the keyboard itself to the app. But as said, we don't actually collect any privacy-sensitive data (and never will), and disabling full access comes with a few other caveats because Apple put many basic features such as vibration etc behind the full access setting as well, for whatever reason.
This is exactly the reason why I haven't looked into other keyboards. Gboard seems like a google-sponsored key logger? Anyone know of some good privacy-focused ones?
Please see my other comment here :) We do not collect any private data, and we never will. We only collect very generic and fully anonymized usage data, but that does not include typed characters, words, clipboard history, snippets, or anything else that could be considered private.
I see many positive posts about AI. It is true some sentiment is negative, but I prefer a mixture of opinions to an echo chamber. I hear LinkedIn is very pro AI in sentiment so you should look there.
The problem with those opinions is they add next to nothing, and they often have the least experience with the things they're critiquing.
Those of us who want to explore what people are doing have to wade through piles of comments saying the same thing, with very little difference from comment to comment.
That said, the opinion is quite valid. I think many people will continue to have no use for agents.
> I see this moment as one where we can unshackle ourselves from the oligarchs and corporate overlords.
For me, modern AI appears to be controlled entirely by oligarchs and corporate overlords already. Some of them are the same who already shackled us. This time will not be different, in my opinion.
Very significant. Nearly every commit has involved the use of one or more LLMs, as evidenced by the commit trailers. I would not have started this project without it, because I do not know Rust. Even the overall direction and architecture has involved roleplay-based "rubber ducking" with LLMs [0].
I've carefully stewarded & heavily edited the Ruby code in lib/ and test/, and the documentation (RDoc and Markdown). The Rust code has been left largely to the AI, with its quality kept presumably-okay by Clippy and extensive automated tests on the Ruby side.
As for the non-library stuff ("internal" to the project), you can tell by browsing the tasks/ folder where I left the AI to its own devices [1], and where I heavily edited the Ruby code [2].
One cannot criticize anything ever if they don't have a better solution? You can't think of any benefit to people collectively discussing their seemingly unsolvable problem? You don't think that people discussing a problem that seems to have no solution have ever come up with a solution??
All problems in history were solved by individuals who immediately had the correct answer without any discussion?!!
How many problems were solved by shutting down discussions do you think? Are we thinking stifling conversations causes more problem solving?!
But the commenter I initially replied to is not discussing in good faith, they're diatribing and soapboxing. That is why my question was framed as rhetorical, not to shut down actual discussion.
I read the entire paper, and his criticism is spot on. I even read through many of the references, which, in my spot checks, don't support the claims in the paper. Very disappointing work, IMHO.
I did both! I'm not concerned with defending anyone, I'm interested in truth. His criticism was sound, and your comments contribute even less to the discussion than his. Very disappointing.
> Is he incorrect that the paper is speculating about future events? I don't think it's completely uninformed either.
Most people would say this is a defense of the person, or at least a defense of the person's choice to not read the full paper. It is no fun to debate with intellectual dishonesty.
Anyone with experience reading research papers professionally will tell you that one of the responsibilities of a paper's abstract is to meaningfully convey the level of evidence and certainty that the paper is backed by. This paper did very well at that, by having the abstract indicate its more of an essay/opinion piece than an a more scientific piece. This is blindingly obvious, and was a simple observation that everyone for some reason dismissed not on merit, but because the person who said it hadn't read the whole paper, which for a 40 page document is an incredibly high bar that is likely not met by 90% of the people commenting here.
And someday we will have truly autonomous driving cars, we will cure cancer, and humans will visit Mars.
You can't prompt this today, are you suggesting this might come literally tomorrow? 10 years? 30? At that unknown time will your comment become relevant?
the quoted comment is arguing that devops will never be promptable — putting aside the discussion about whether or not that's true today, the argument here is that it's not likely to _never_ be possible
reply