Synthetic data is used in specific contexts. Slopped up hacker news comments along side natural ones is where watermarking will be used to delimitate them. Not all synthetic data is good.
I have the complete opposite experience. Got a 9550x with 64gb ddr5 and a fairly high end mobo about two year ago. Just running the memory at stock speed. About 50% of the time I’d reboot and one or both of the sticks would only be detected as 2gb. Would need to do a hard shutdown to get it back.
I eventually gave up and turned off memory context restore and now I just deal with the minute plus (!) time to Post.
Not sure if amd memory controllers are just garbo or what but I’m going back to intel next chance I get.
On the desktop Intel has better memory controllers last time I looked, but it’s not that big a difference. Something in your setup is just broken. Failures will happen with any brand, so I wouldn’t chalk it up to AMD vs Intel… figure out where your problem is and get the faulty part replaced if you can.
I feel you though, regardless of the cause, that is an extremely frustrating place to be.
Yea I’m just bummed because it’s a real expensive time to be swapping memory parts around. Like I said, things seem to just work without memory context restore so I’m fine with just paying the cost when I reboot once a week or whatever. I feel like the fact that disabling MCR fixes it should narrow down the issue to some part, I’m just not sure which.
Did you set it to do memory training on every boot? That's a big stability help.
Should also run Memtest86+ a few times. With some stick swapping you can determine if you have a bad stick or slot.
Yea I’ve done endless googling around the issue and it seems to be a not uncommon issue with ddr5 but there’s no way I’m buying new parts now so I’ve come to peace with it.
It feels particularly bad for a local arts faire. Like maybe ask one of the local artists if they could design a poster instead of defaulting to the plagiarism machine? If I saw this ai poster for a local crafts faire I’d immediately dismiss it.
Do you offer to pay them in exposure? Or do you offer them actually money commensurate with the work and skill they provide?
Because if it’s the latter we’re back to money being the barrier. And if it’s the former you should go and check with your local artists how much they love working for exposure.
Yes, running an event has work and expenses involved in it. An AI slop poster is a sign the event is not serious and has other more major issues under the surface.
Making a poster is free and easy. Literal children do it in school.
I’ve made posters for events. Affinity is free now, it takes you like an hour to learn it from scratch and make your poster. If you couldn’t be bothered doing that, then that’s a signal the event itself is low effort slop. I'm not sure why people are acting like it's impossible to run an event without AI tools that literally didn't exist until right now.
First time I heard about V was because of the Volt desktop chat app: https://volt-app.com/ which seemed attractive at the time. Turns out it was completely closed source and read secrets from local browser's cookie storage without any kind of warning. I've never nope'd out of a program so fast.
There are others in this comment section claiming this language is scam. Seems about right. The entire Vinix page is slop, too.
If I remember correctly the language promised automatic memory management without downsides, but then instead of implementing that magical feature they started working on a GUI library and whatnot. Apparently now they've moved onto a whole OS while the autofree feature is still "experimental"
Yeah lol it’s basically the only reliable way to know how things work. Pre-AI, I read documentation for libraries that I used almost every day.
And now with AI I’m using it to fact check Claude. And still reading it for myself to understand why other peoples code is written a certain way. It’s basically the most important thing to reference when coding.
Sure today Claude can just read the library code and tell you what a function does or how to do something. But it still won’t tell you why something is a certain way or won’t figure out specifically-designed usage patterns as reliably as the author telling you “this is an example of doing x”
I really appreciated a friend reaching out to me with some PHP questions today. It was, to me, fairly basic but he was having a hard time grokking the documentation vs reading what his coworker wrote (some code using output buffering).
I brushed up on the docs since I haven't touched it in a couple years, explained my understanding of the ob_* functions, and gave him a very brief demo on a PHP playground.
He could have asked any LLM to tell him what that chunk of code did, and to explain the three functions, and instead he reached out to me. That felt _good_. Talking shop has always been a good way for me to form connections, because the pressure to socialize becomes task-oriented and you start to learn about how people think and feel, and that opens up easier paths for actual connection. It was nice.
Just like the Old Internet still exists - niche websites, mailing lists, probably a BBS or two (likely more right?), the pre-LLM world will trudge on, for a time. I hope LLMs actually lead to good things for people in the long run, and for now I personally will remain sparse in my usage of them.
The good news is your attention to actually reading and understanding documentation will differentiate you more and more as others (short-sighted, IMO) outsource understanding to an LLM.
when you start to internalize that these kinds of statements are an indication of how the average developer of the last 10-15 years operated the adoption rate of AI makes a lot more sense
Pangram has an extremely low false positive rate. Even on adversarial examples.
One trade-off is even some obviously LLM text won't get detected by them, but they work really hard to ensure false positives are rare since a false accusation is much worse for society than someone getting away with LLM meatpuppetry.
I think you can't trust Pangram in a high stakes situation, but it is absolutely better than random noise at detecting AI-generated text. Which isn't surprising. If the distribution of probabilities can yield blatant Claudisms, it's not surprising it would also have more subtle deviations.
(Addendum: As I recall, LLM-generated outputs roughly follow Zipf's law, but the distribution still tends to have some subtle distinctions vs human text; pretty interesting, but I don't know where I heard this, so nothing to cite. Sorry.)
To be honest with you, I don't think I would be able to identify with high certainty that the bottom text is AI generated, so it definitely goes a long way to obscure the AI-generated nature of it, but I also think it still feels unnatural somehow. I realize my framing naturally calls into question whether I'm being honest, but I am being honest. Given my experience with similar "skills" (it's just chunks of prompt, nothing magical after all) I expected even less.
But still, this is all very strange because it wasn't that many generations of AI models ago that AI writing was a lot better - I'm talking GPT 4.1, Claude 4.5, that sort of era.
Anthropic newsroom posts on the other hand are carefully constructed and well-written in a way that I have not seen demonstrated by LLMs yet, past or present. I expect that they have well-paid staff who are careful with every detail of their public communications. When you put it that way, it almost feels unfathomable that they wouldn't, doesn't it?
reply