Alright mate, take your high horse elsewhere please.

Olmo might be the closest you can get

https://allenai.org/olmo (website straight up crashes my phone)

https://huggingface.co/allenai/OLMo-7B

Olmo is trained on the Dolma dataset, “a diverse mixture of web content, scientific papers, code, public-domain books, social media, and encyclopedic materials”, so this might be a more ethical source, but I’m not sure if it’s copyleft free.

https://huggingface.co/papers/2402.00159

You could rent a cluster of GPUs and remove copyleft material and retrain

CS is one of the best sciences because tests are usually cheap.

I've started saying "NPC behavior" where I used to say "AI".

I just created !PapersWeLove@programming.dev if you're interested in sharing/discussing academic CS papers.

This is pretty much the "I fancy her but I don't want to reveal it unless it's reciprocal" problem right?

Impossible because anyone can just lie. Say they fancy everyone, see who they match with and then say "haha joke!".

Also £5 says your application is dating/sex/kinks lol

I'd be happy to read those posts :)

My home was programming.dev. Moved onto PieFed because it lets me add keyword filters so I can mostly browse without the LLM discourse. You better believe I have LLM, Claude, vibe-code filtered out. Even AI, although it does mean I'll have filtered out cool stuff from 2019 about how video game NPCs make decisions and other types of cool artificial decision-making that are not what is getting all the discourse.

Yes pls

So what you want me to do? I did not create AI. I’m doing software for 7 years now and I’m not happy where the sector is going too. But what I can do?

I could not build this project in a week if there was no AI and likely wouldn’t even bother without it because it is pretty complicated.

I’m still pretty enthusiastic about it. I do enjoy when I see the results. I’m trying to share something and make my life easier. So what? I should rewrite it by hand because that is more valuable?

I really don’t know what you want me to do.

steel is a horrible material for a nervous system

how is THC meant to run on that

Sorry for the slow reply. US coverage shipped on 24 October. The file is 1.45 GB, and yes, it uses Census TIGER/Line 2025 address ranges alongside the point addresses from the National Address Database and state and county open data (via Overture Maps).

There is no database to build: download one file, then query it locally.

https://gridpin.dev/geocoding-usa

You can do this cryptographically as an interactive zero-knowledge protocol without a third-party.

This is easiest done by splitting it up into separate problems: For any arbitrary interest, a protocol to check if Alice and Bob share that interest. Doing the whole set is then a matter of repeating the protocol across a finite set of possible interests. So we'll deal with the simpler problem of checking if they share interests.

Let's assume that Alice and Bob already have an authenticated channel set up (i.e. Eve can't pretend to be Bob) - e.g. because they've previously exchanged public keys through a secure channel.

Zero-Knowledge (ZK) protocols come in Interactive and Non-Interactive flavours. Here, we'll need an interactive protocol, because otherwise Bob could run the same protocol twice, once saying he does have the interest, and once saying he doesn't.

This problem is almost identical to the Socialist Millionaire Problem, except you don't want to leak information if Alice and Bob don't share the interest.

Alice and Bob calculate their respective x_ij values (where i=0 for Alice, i=1 for Bob), such that x_ij is 0 if participant i has interest j, and a large random number if not.

They then use a Socialist Millionaire Protocol (e.g. the one from the OTR messaging protocol in the above linked article) to check if x_0j is equal to x_1j. If they both picked 0 (have the interest), the protocol tells then their values are the same. If one of them has interest j and one doesn't, the one with the interest learns the other does not have the interest, while the other party learns nothing (except that the other party didn't pick the same large random number). If they both don't have the interest, they only learn that the other picked a different large random number or zero, but can't tell between the two. Assuming sufficiently large numbers, it is vanishingly unlikely they'd pick the same number.

The interactive protocol can be run in parallel for each interest j, but has a few sequential steps per interest (ensuring neither party can cheat and have more than one choice per interest).

Overall my experience is similar. The top tier models are pretty damn good, add some facy skills and they get even better for single projects. But try to approach a huge legacy codebase, be it monorepo on 100+ repos and you get properly shafted by the cost of doing anything. A 20 ish $ sub lasts about an hour at best.

Script kiddies are like "eww Java", but this is actually great. If it's output and runtime are performant and not overly bloated this can be pretty awesome. Bringing the gigantic amount of pre-existing Java software to the browser. I would like to see comparisons with Go's WASM

Yeah, won't that always be a problem if only 2 people are involved? One person can just indicate all preferences and immediately discover what the other person's are.

You don't, and I didn't ask you for one. Incidentally you don't owe me anything else either.

Yes, someone can lie. I wonder how effective any countermeasures may be (e.g. honey tokens to detect someone just saying they love everything), but at the end of the day, I think we are forced to assume all answer truthfully if we want any expectation of secrecy.

Thought the same. Alice could just say she likes everything, and then she learns exactly what Bob likes without revealing anything about herself.

Of course Bob may now believe that Alice likes certain things she doesn't, but Bob will also notice that it's a bit too lucky that Alice likes everything that he likes.

Yeah, just like most other things that are not computationally verifiable, this has basically zero Byzantine fault tolerance.

Couldn't someone just lie? If Alice hates romance and wants to know if Bob is a filthy romance lover, she could just lie and say she likes romance. No matter what system you implement, Alice will now be told "You and Bob both like romance!"

You got a loicence for that quality posting?

Those are called set and you want to be able to operate on those set secretly. Here is an old paper that could point out to many more stuff

https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~leak/papers/set-tech-full.pdf

Yeah this isn't reddit. We just happy people are talking. Especially if its interesting stuff like CS.