I wish these comments were banned. They come up every time someone names a project with a name that was also used by one guy for his forgotten Lisp dialect in the 70s.
It is interesting to see the degree to which Claude voice creeps into normal speech. It also leads to some annoying catch-22’s, like rejecting an em-dash where you might have genuinely written one to avoid the appearance of LLM text.
Thankfully I’m lazy and have always used hyphens everywhere so at least I’m safe on that point.
I was just mentioning this in another comment earlier today, but Claude Opus 4.8 (that version specifically) uses the word “genuinely” on so many of its responses that I’ve started using it often when speaking when I didn’t before. Nothing wrong with the word itself, just a frustrating reminder that using these tools all day for work (and then on top of that some nights and weekends for personal projects) is literally changing how I speak and presumably think…
Oh very nice, bliss looks pretty slick. I see musefs as being kind of an unglamorous middle man layer that ultimately just has one job, separate the metadata handling from the backing files.
Since the DB is the source of truth you can absolutely version your metadata. The portable mirror use case is definitely one that people run into, but I see musefs more enabling that than handling it directly. It’d be really easy to handle transcoding and art handling just pointing at a musefs mount or by having a plugin for whatever you’re using handle it.
I definitely agree that continuous automation is the way to go, personally I set it up differently though. Whenever I have a new album in my music folder it gets detected and then beets imports it and museFS autoscans it. That handles 99% of cases silently in the background and the other 1% are the ones I’d want surfaced to make a judgement call on anyway.
That's what I mean by continuous automation, using rules (constraints) to dictate how the library is managed (in your case, what beets does, e.g. auto download art of the given size and format, constrain the genre etc etc).
Sonnet, GPT-5.2, Gemini Flash, in a set of 21 games, where conclusions are drawn from the LLMs self reported reasoning.
This is like writing a paper about kids in a literal sandbox fighting over ‘territory’.
The models employed don’t indicate the actual extents of machine reasoning even as we currently recognize them. They certainly don’t have the metacognition necessary to accurately understand their own reasoning. As we’ve seen with recent papers on how LLMs do math there’s a complete disconnect between actual and reported mechanism.
LLMs have already been used to bomb school girls, chilling is absolutely the operative word to use here. Especially since these delusional fools want to incorporate LLMs into everything.
Forgive my ignorance, but were LLMs involved in that decision? I don't remember hearing anything to that effect, but we're so bombarded by news these days I guess I could just be forgetting
Yes our government purportedly used technology to work up a list of targets in the Iran debacle as well just not with a LLM a distinction that to me just isn't that meaningful
Is it really though? Now admittedly I’ve never worked with LexisNexis or Westlaw, but would it really be that difficult to have a tool just check if the citations actually exist?
You also have to read them and check whether they claim what the document claims. Just checking whether it goes somewhere is not enough.
This whole thing is requiring people to do exactly the thing they are bad at - controling output of something else while being passive and not loosing attention.
IIIRC in terms of clients mutt (&co) will actually handle “@“ in the local part correctly.
> But the real reason I do that is just because I just like to sit in anger whenever this breaks the user experience because of programming errors or inconsistencies.
Genuinely delighted by the fact that I’m not alone in that.
