I love Bun and use it daily, but I'm still very frustrated by all the configuration that one needs ATM when working in the js ecosystem. Do you guys see yourself integrating more and more, and moving more and more towards a "convention over configuration", to bring a more streamlined dev experience (that languages like Golang and Rust have, for example)
I really don't understand why investors poured so much money into Bun, I guess they saw another potential Vercel play? An acquisition doesn't sound like a very good outcome for these investors, even by Anthropic, I would imagine
if I would guess Anthropic is (rightly) frustrated with the state of the js ecosystem and is taking the best attempt so far to make the js experience much more streamlined for their developers. Convention over configuration might finally be coming to the js ecosystem?
Unless I need close to 100% memory safety with no compromise in performance I'd rather write Zig, Odin or Go.
Zig and Odin are much more enjoyable to write and provide enough safety for a lot of applications, and Go gets you 90% of the performance of Rust without the complexity.
I swear there are people who take a massive amount of pride in using languages or technology that are obscure. That thing use to be Rust, but now that it's become fairly mainstream they have to find something new to move to.
I wonder how long it will be before we start seeing "Ada is the new Rust" YouTube videos.
I was always amazed when discussing with Americans who have kept their phone numbers since they were kids, there was a time I would change phone number every year
A mix of moving abroad a lot, but also change of phone provider (often moved provider because they were cheaper, and didn't manage to keep my number). I also never really made an effort to keep the same phone number as most people used email, then facebook, then other online apps (whatsapp, instagram, etc.) and I rarely used my phone number for anything long-term relationship
Because it doesn't matter. Or it didn't in the past, now it's a security nightmare to not have your number anymore and risk someone else having it before you changed it everywhere.
Now that lots of services require you to have a phone/use a phone number to login changing numbers could potentially mean losing access to services/accounts you use. (I also hate this)
Swapping my phone number every year in the US would be an annoying as hell. Tons of services use phone number as 2FA or a backup recovery. (Including a lot of banks) I use SMS with some people and that would cut contact with them. Same direction if they changed numbers.
Yeah, I've had the same number since about 2001. It's nice as I've moved since then so any number that calls from my area code is definitely spam, although that's not really an issue now that my phone doesn't ring for unknown numbers.
It solves some problems! For example, if you want to run a camgirl website based on AI models and want to also prove that you're not exploiting real people
> It solves some problems! For example, if you want to run a camgirl website based on AI models and want to also prove that you're not exploiting real people
So, you exploit real people, but run your images through a realtime AI video transformation model doing either a close-to-noop transformation or something like changing the background so that it can't be used to identify the actual location if people do figure out you are exploiting real people, and then you have your real exploitation watermarked as AI fakery.
I don't think this is solving a problem, unless you mean a problem for the would-be exploiter.
Your use case doesn't even make sense. What customers are clamoring for that feature? I doubt any paying customer in the market for (that product) cares. If the law cares, the law has tools to inquire.
All of this is trivially easy to circumvent ceremony.
Google is doing this to deflect litigation and to preserve their brand in the face of negative press.
They'll do this (1) as long as they're the market leader, (2) as long as there aren't dozens of other similar products - especially ones available as open source, (3) as long as the public is still freaked out / new to the idea anyone can make images and video of whatever, and (4) as long as the signing compute doesn't eat into the bottom line once everyone in the world has uniform access to the tech.
The idea here is that {law enforcement, lawyers, journalists} find a deep fake {illegal, porn, libelous, controversial} image and goes to Google to ask who made it. That only works for so long, if at all. Once everyone can do this and the lookup hit rates (or even inquiries) are < 0.01%, it'll go away.
It's really so you can tell journalists "we did our very best" so that they shut up and stop writing bad articles about "Google causing harm" and "Google enabling the bad guys".
We're just in the awkward phase where everyone is freaking out that you can make images of Trump wearing a bikini, Tim Cook saying he hates Apple and loves Samsung, or the South Park kids deep faking each other into silly circumstances. In ten years, this will be normal for everyone.
Writing the sentence "Dr. Phil eats a bagel" is no different than writing the prompt "Dr. Phil eats a bagel". The former has been easy to do for centuries and required the brain to do some work to visualize. Now we have tools that previsualize and get those ideas as pixels into the brain a little faster than ASCII/UTF-8 graphemes. At the end of the day, it's the same thing.
And you'll recall that various forms of written text - and indeed, speech itself - have been illegal in various times, places, and jurisdictions throughout history. You didn't insult Caesar, you didn't blaspheme the medieval church, and you don't libel in America today.
> How can they distinguish from real people exploited to AI models autogenerating everything?
Watermarking by compliant models doesn't help this much because (1) models without watermarking exist and can continue to be developed (especially if absence of a watermark is treated as a sign of authenticity), so you cannot rely on AI fakery being watermarked, and (2) AI models can be used for video-to-video generation without changing much of the source, so you can't rely on something accurately watermarked as "AI-generated" not being based in actual exploitation.
Now, if the watermarking includes provenance information, and you require certain types of content to be watermarked not just as AI using a known watermarking system, but by a registered AI provider with regulated input data safety guardrails and/or retention requirements, and be traceable to a registered user, and...
Well, then it does something when it is present, largely by creating a new content gatekeepiing cartel.
> How can they distinguish from real people exploited to AI models autogenerating everything?
The people who care don't consume content which even just plausibly looks like real people exploited. They wouldn't consume the content even if you pinky promised that the exploited looking people are not real people. Even if you digitally signed that promise.
reply