Spiders are not insects though https://www.burkemuseum.org/collections-and-research/biology...

Restricting the word "insects" to hexapods is a modern convention that does not have any basis in etymology.

Aristotle used the word "insects" for all terrestrial arthropods and this was followed for millennia until the last two centuries when someone preferred to use "Insecta" instead of "Hexapoda", without giving any reason for this, and others followed this taxonomy.

Even so, the exact extent of the term "insects" varies between biologists, because some do not include all wingless hexapods under "insects".

In an informal discussion, I do not see any mistake in using the word "insects" with its original meaning from Aristotle, which is also the meaning that can be encountered in a lot of old books. For unambiguous animal classification, the word "hexapods" is preferable.

This is a discussion about animal intelligence. Jumping spiders have a different brain layout than bees, which are formally insects. Other insects are more like the bee than spiders.

So in this case, it matters that spiders are not in fact insects in the strict sense.

This is explicitly a thread about arthropods, though.

Quote from above:

> they are by a healthy margin the most intelligent arthropod

> Restricting the word "insects" to hexapods is a modern convention that does not have any basis in etymology.

This is one of those very rare cases in which "entomology" or "etymology" might have been chosen without the intended meaning being clear. :)

But they are arthropods.

Awesome work, the detector seems accurate on a bunch of texts I tried, surprisingly even human/ai hybrid texts

That's honestly so good to hear, thank you.

There is no nefariousness in owning all the means of production, it's the endgame of maximizing profit.

However the result is exactly the same, concentration of power.

This is such a defeatist and low agency take. "means of production" are not a limited resource like gold that you have to extract from natural sources or divvy up. They are fundamentally skill and knowledge that anyone can attain and put to use, maybe not on the same scale as a well funded business but even those businesses had to start somewhere in order to grow to the size they are now. So rather than casting aspersions on them, your time would be better spent learning how you too can create some means of production and start producing value.

AI companies are trying to mechanize skill and knowledge and to own the infrastructure around it. If they succeed, your suggestion does not work. Even if they can't succeed, they will try because that's the most obvious path to maximizing profit for them.

Also about "creating" means of production, these companies actively try to sabotage this as another profit maximization strategy. They buy all the ram, so others cannot compete. They buy startups who succeed, so they stop competing.

It's not aspersions, it's just describing the phenomenon.

Even if I take your suggestion to heart, once my company would be big enough, if I wanted to optimize for profit, I would have to do the same as these companies.

The end result is concentrated power.

You think AI tech doesn't use rare earth metals?

Rare earth metals aren't rare, it's a misnomer.

Depends on how you define rare. Also irrelevant — the only thing important to the argument is that they are "limited resources."

No nefariousness other than the subjugation of the majority of humanity? You're insane

What I meant is that nefariousness from people is not a prerequisite. It's a machine that wants to maximize all profit and all the evil is a natural product. If you magically put saints in charge they would be eaten and replaced by the same kind of people very quickly if the end goal remains.

The "evil" is not just in the effect, it is in the callous, sociopathic disregard for the sanctity of life that lives in Zuckerberg and all the individuals involved; that is the evil "prima materia" out of which downstream actions and outcomes are borne.

If you own 6 houses, you don't only have an income the size of a full-time job but also make money out of the appreciation of property prices. Couldn't you and your immediate family retire by just selling these 6 houses? Or is the situation different in Seattle?

Also you are saying you are also working as a senior SWE. How are you so involved with 55 tenants and balance a full-time job at the same time? I've known people with 1 tenant who needed days off to deal with their issues, I find it hard to imagine personally dealing with 55.

Honestly curious here

I could sell all of the houses and retire, yeah. Especially the poor performing ones, after accounting for the mortgage I am in the red on two of them every month. I don't know if I expect property prices to appreciate in Seattle as we're flooding the market with housing and in the US we're having some unstable demographic shifts so I try to select properties that perform well on day 1, going forward.

Yes, my family also asks me how I do it. I am just working constantly, from sunup to sundown; pretty much 7 days a week. I don't always do a perfect job juggling the responsibilities but I do my best and I think 99-100% of my tenants would say they're enjoying the accommodations; and I think my manager would say my performance is good. Hoping I can get married and start a family soon and at that point I think hiring a property manager would be the correct move. But I have a very high amount of resilience to stress and being upset so being consistently under pressure isn't too much of a problem for me personally.

Also keep in mind there are certain types of tenants that are lower maintenance than others, so proper tenant selection is important.

Consider using agent mode for some things, you are definitely missing out.

The analogy I've had for myself is that it feels like using a bulldozer to dig rather than a shovel. If you use it to dig archaeological artifacts, it can make things worse than you started. A lot of the work however, is just moving dirt around, so you are wasting time by using a shovel.

Digging with a bulldozer sounds like hard work. You mean a digger.

Language barrier (bulldozer is used as a placeholder in my native language) , I should have said heavy machinery

Cards on the table, after posting I had doubts about this and had to look it up! Executive summary: "digger" = hole, "bulldozer" = flattish, "steamroller" (or just "roller") = flat as a pancake.

Maybe you can support schemas in more dialects by using a similar approach to a little tool I made: sqlscope.netlify.app

Basically integrate sqlglot to translate the schema between dialects and then use a base dialect for generating the schema.

The two tools seem complementary and you seem to be a better designer, so it would be nice to see it all together

They could make two kinds of pull requests and add much more strict criteria for public contributions. For example, they could say that the PR has to be smaller in size and well-documented for human review, otherwise it's closed by an automation.

And then if someone wants to do a larger contribution, they could have a process like making an issue, discussing the approach and then collaborating with a maintainer to get it in.

Blocking public contributions means that they want to have complete control of the project and AI is likely a good excuse to do that.

That doesn't solve the volume or quality problem. LLMs can split one giant PR into 50 smaller PRs just as easily and "well-documented" isn't something you can determine automatically.

Why is it so hard to just accept that AI PRs suck and create an enormous amount of toil?

Well it still looks suspicious if a user creates 50 PRs in one go. So you would close them automatically.

As for well-documented, the reviewer can decide that when they are reviewing the smaller PR.

Nobody said volume is not a problem, but closing down contributions entirely is a step too far.

"Social engineering is all you need"

More like "Prompt engineering" ?

Can we really name this "Prompt engineering"? The prompt is so simple this is hardly any work even less than this comment

Fair point but it's not social either. It's a new class of exploit that's based on tricking the AI.

It's not based on plugging an LLM into an area where it doesn't belong in the first place?

That's an interesting interpretation of open source.

Exactly, hopefully this is not an autoblock in the future.

> A transaction that fails on three or four of them is almost always fraud. A transaction that fails on one might be your grandma being weird with her debit card on vacation.

The article states that the particular item is a clear sign of fraud. If that was true, then it should be treated in a special manner. A more paranoid bank could enforce it without adhering to this guidance of multi-factor detection.

It isn't though, so balancing it with other rules is fine.