It does to some extent, because companies have to respect gdpr for their own users as well: so individual employees/slack users have gdpr rights and they individually can get those enforced against the slack operators.
This type of contribution is so incredibly both tone deaf and unempathetic, I wonder if you understand even how incredibly selfish the attitude is? Especially in using the word “just”. “Just” do this incredibly complex switch, which is utterly unsuitable to your users and how they work together, and which doesn’t actually solve your problem at hand since the article is about something else.
You give zero thoughts as to how the people affected are actually using the tool, why they would be in need of real time communication rather than delayed clunky messages, or even who the actual audience is.
Even with the absolute best reading of intentions I can give to your comment, I can only imagine you wrote it to make some microsubset of people still using mailing lists feel better about their choice and validated in one of the ever rarer advantages there are to using email as primary communication.
Either that or you don’t actually know what Slack is. But then why comment?
I'm sorry that you read my comment as "tone deaf". It was not my intention.
> This type of contribution is so incredibly both tone deaf and unempathetic, I wonder if you understand even how incredibly selfish the attitude is? Especially in using the word “just”.
I don't see how a comment which proposes a solution to the problem at hand can be "selfish".
I am the owner of a small business myself and am well aware of what switching tools requires. I'm also sorry that you think that modern tools like Slack or Mattermost for that matter improve communication over what email provides; then again that is obviously a matter of opinion.
> “Just” do this incredibly complex switch, which is utterly unsuitable to your users and how they work together, and which doesn’t actually solve your problem at hand since the article is about something else.
The article is about a simple yet painful problem. I am proposing a solution, I don't see how my comment is not pertinent. As for my use of the word "just", simple does not mean easy.
> Even with the absolute best reading of intentions I can give to your comment, I can only imagine you wrote it to make some microsubset of people still using mailing lists feel better about their choice and validated in one of the ever rarer advantages there are to using email as primary communication.
>
> Either that or you don’t actually know what Slack is. But then why comment?
False dichotomy. I truly believe that mailing lists are a great way to collaborate. Especially given the case that data ownership is now even more important to the author of the post.
Slack/Mattermost try to combine real-time chat with asynchronous information exchange. I think that that is not a great way to work, this is close enough to what I think of these solutions to [link to](https://basecamp.com/guides/group-chat-problems). Not only that but your data will always be locked away in their non-standard format.
Moreover, I emailed the author (good thing this "clunky" system exists), and offered help with a potential switch to using email. Thank you nonetheless for taking my comment into consideration. I can only hope it was more useful for other readers than it was for you.
Ah yes the duality of anti-AI crowds on HN. “GenAI is just fancy autocorrect”, and “autocorrect isn’t actually GenAI”.
The thing is, if you’re talking about making laws (as GP is), your “surely people understand this difference” strategy doesn’t matter squat and the impact will be larger than you think.
You don't seem to understand what people mean when they say "AI is just fancy autocorrect". People talk about the little word suggestions over the keyboard, not about correcting spelling. And yes, of course those suggestions are going to be provided by some sort of ML model, and yes if you actually write a whole article just using them, it should be marked as AI generated, but literally no one is doing that. Maybe because it's not fancy enough autocorrect. Either way, this is not the gotcha you think.
A law like this would obviously need some sort of sensible definition of what "AI" means in this context. Online translation tools also use ML models and even systems to unlock your device with your face do, so classifying all of that as "AI contributions" would make the definition completely useless.
I assume the OP was talking about things like LLMs and diffusion models which one could definitely single out for regulatory purposes. At the end of the day I don't think it would ever be realistically possible to have a law like this anyway, at least not one that wouldn't come with a bunch of ambiguity that would need to be resolved in court.
OK, so define it for us, please. Because, once again, this thread is talking about introducing laws about "AI". OP was talking about LLMs you say - So SLMs then are fine? If not, then where is the boundary? If they're fine then congratulations you have created a new industry of people pushing the boundaries of what SLMs can do, as well as how they are defined.
Laws are built on definitions and this hand-wavy BS is how we got nonsense like the current version of the AI act.
Why are you so mad at me, I'm not even the OP you should ask these questions. I'm also not convinced we need regulation like this in the first place, so I can't tell you where this boundary should be, but a boundary could certainly be found and it would be beyond simple spellchecking autocorrect.
I also don't understand why you think this would be so impossible to define. There are regulations for all kinds of areas where specific things are targeted like chemicals or drugs and just because some of these have incentivized people to slightly change a regulated thing into an unregulated thing does not mean we don't regulate these areas at all. So how are AI systems so different that you think it'd be impossible to find an adequate definition?
Stripe Support does it for certain specific cases (email & phone). However, whenever they do it, it's a bilateral code generation: The support agent also gets a code they have to read out to the end user, which is featured prominently to them, saying the agent will have to read it out to get authentified.
I wrote websites in the jquery era. I wrote web apps back then. Gaming tools, databases, tons of dynamic stuff.
When I used react for the first time I cried with “where has this been all my life? It would have saved me years of work”.
Whenever I see claims like yours I always have hardcore doubts. React may not have “enabled” new things just like ai coding doesn’t “enable” new things … as long as you consider time to be in infinite supply. If you care about getting shit done, there is no comparison.
Does codex have a good way of doing post process hooks? For Claude Code hooks I never found a way to run a formatter over only the file that was edited. It’s super annoying as I want to constantly have linting and formatting cleaned up right after the model finishes editing a file…
They can go in the inspector and see “oh wow so many MBs of JS”, but they can’t see the backend.
There is a good point to that: this data that is downloaded is an end user resource. Over a mobile network etc it’ll matter. But the days where it mattered at home/office are long, long gone, at least for the audience of the websites that adopt this strategy.
The obsession I believe is a remnant of these old days. There was a transitionary period still a decade ago (when hn was already not that young) where users would spend time loading a website, then complain about the amount of js on the page and how that is unnecessary. The connections got upgraded but nothing strikes down a habit…
More like they can see it but also can't see it. There's megabytes of JS loaded just to show me a crappy glorified PDF that doesn't even work properly. A page I could have literally made using only HTML and CSS and it would be better, but somehow you've made it take 11mb of JavaScript code and it doesn't even work properly. That's the kind of website I scoff at.
I have no issues at all with this website. It's awesome. I mean it's a bit slow but that's probably because it's on the front page on HN right now - yet it still works pretty well. The design is delightful. Incredibly well done. One of the coolest websites I've seen. Who cares how much JS it takes, it's obviously worth it.
Don’t worry, most countries are buying tens of thousands of drones. That investment is happening. (Source: I work in this sector)
(Worth noting: Your comment sounds like “I have a feeling fixing (critical bug 1) would be a better investment than (fixing critical bug 2)”. You fix both.)
reply