My personal experience is that the increase in ads has encouraged me to subscribe to creators I like via Patreon and view content on there. If many people are doing this, I wonder if it skews the view statistics and, therefore, lowers the number of recommendations for the best channels. In turn, this makes it less likely for good channels to be discovered. The increase in YouTube ads also makes me much less interested in browsing there, and I am finding other things to do instead.
Readit Newscraftit commented on YouTube is a mysterious monopoly anderegg.ca/2025/09/08/yo... · Posted by u/geerlingguy
craftit commented on Ask HN: How do you organize your electronic components? · Posted by u/Acetylcholine
I opted for sorting by project. We live in a world where you can get most things the next day. Then, I keep a few part-sample books for common components like capacitors and resistors for modding. Even if I need a specialist component, I know what projects I have used it in before
craftit commented on Ask HN: Why don't VCs just "suck it up" and pay founders a competitive salary? · Posted by u/burtonator
Feature that benefits who? the VCs? I think that's what you're trying to say (with sarcasm).
Correct me if I'm wrong though.
My take is that it means founders are sharing the risk by investing in the company and by taking a smaller salary than they could otherwise. This means there is a clear motivation to get a successful exit for them as well as the VC's
craftit commented on The C++20 Naughty and Nice List for Game Devs jeremyong.com/c++/2023/12... · Posted by u/todsacerdoti
This was my first encounter with the three-way comparison operator (<=>). Can someone give a practical use case? There must be one for it to be included in the spec, but I'm not seeing it.
It saves writing lots of boilerplate. If you implement it for a type, you automatically get: <, >, <=, >=, ==, !=
I have a question which I don't know the answer to:
With those structured numbers will the LLMs be 100% accurate on new prompts or will they just be better than chance (even significantly better than chance)?
Because this is one thing, it has to learn the structure and then create probabilities based on the data, but does that mean it's actually learning the underlying algorithm for addition for example or is it just getting better probabilities because of a narrowing of them? If it can indeed learn underlying algorithms like this that's super interesting. The reason also this is in an issue if it _can't_ learn those, you can never trust the answer unless you check it, but that's sort of a sidepoint.
From what I understand, it can learn and execute the algorithm fairly reliably, though it won't be 100%. When the LLM generates text, it is randomised a little, as well as some tricks that prevent repetition, which would likely cause problems with numbers containing all the same digit.
Why are transformer models so bad at math? They often fail at simple addition.
Because often, the tokens are broken up as random groups of numbers. For example, let's say 1984 appears quite a few times in the source text, this will become a single token. Given that these many different, semi-random groups of digits it is hard for the LLM to learn any consistent rules. I believe there are papers showing that if you structure numbers more consistently LLMs have no problem with this kind of arithmetic.
craftit commented on Is A.I. Art Stealing from Artists? newyorker.com/culture/inf... · Posted by u/giuliomagnifico
Two potential counter-arguments:
1) When artists 'steal' from others, they generally build something 'new'. AI can't really create anything 'new'. Case in point: Umberto Eco's The Name Of The Rose steals the plot and outline from crime stories, steals the library idea from Borges, and steals the murderer's motive from Eco's medieval manuscript (forgot which one). Yet the outcome is something completely new. Same goes for hip-hop music; sampling is at its core, but the final music that comes out is nothing like what it samples, the samples are just a part of something new.
2) when artists steal from each other, it's generally poor artists ripping off other poor artists. No money can flow. When a million/billion-dollar company rips off poor artists to make more money via generative AI it's a different story. Money could flow but it doesn't.
Too your first point, I am not sure what constitutes new or novel here. I've seen the AI do exactly the type of borrowing from different sources you describe and producing something that seems very new to me. Though I admit, often these are under human direction with some carefully chosen sentences. Is that enough to generate something really new?
To your second point, most of the work I've seen generated from these models were done for free. It could be argued that these tools add to an artists toolbox rather than take something away. I can see for example where one poor artist could create a computer game of the same quality that it takes a triple-AAA game company to do today. Is that good or bad?
craftit commented on Is A.I. Art Stealing from Artists? newyorker.com/culture/inf... · Posted by u/giuliomagnifico
From what I've seen in the art world it is common practice to build on the work of others without attribution. Is this really all that different? That said, I think these tools still implicitly depend on people to pick out good images that resonate with people, as if people don't like the image it creates it won't get shared.
Is rust code heavily seasoned with unsafe keyword really that hard to prototype in?
Is it meaningfully harder than c++ in this regard?
From what I've experimented with so far the biggest barrier to using rust was having a mature ecosystem of libraries to use. This is changing though!
<meta> is another question, it depends on string_view, vector, and possibly other parts. Maybe it's possible to make it leaner with more selective internal deps.