Same. I run a server with a ton of services running on it which all have what I think are pretty complex dependency chains. And I also have used Linux with systemd on my laptop. Systemd has never, once, caused me issues.
They can't do that though. If they did, it would make the shareholders and CEOs mad because it would demonstrate that LLMs cannot (yet) deliver on all the promises these CEOs have been claiming for this entire time.
I seriously wonder if everyone in the Windows development team(s) are just vibe-coding everything now. I feel like all of these are rookie mistakes from the POV of working on an operating system. This is also the consequence of eliminating all QA and testing and forcing your users to do that for you. Admittedly there are some things that are hard to test (or impossible to) in an automated way, but that's what the old Windows hardware lab test machines were for.
This only works up to a certain point. Given that the author openly admits they don't know/understand Rust, there is a really high likelihood that the LLM made all kinds of mistakes that would be avoided, and the dev is going to be left flailing about trying to understand why they happen/what's causing them/etc. A hand-rewrite would've actually taught the author a lot of very useful things I'm guessing.
It seems like they have something like differential fuzzing to guarantee identical behavior to the original, but they still are left with a codebase they cannot read...
They also have built-in abbreviation dictionaries. For example, Acapela likes to expand AST to Atlantic Standard Time, even when the context is so obviously (not) talking about time zones.
I actually wrote a Noise implementation and someone wanted to make a Bitchat implementation with it, but my impl only supports BLAKE2B (and I got the impression this person really didn't know what they wanted to do in the first place). It's kinda sad more haven't moved to BLAKE2B (or BLAKE3, which I almost never hear anyone talking about).
Uh, no? This is not at all an absurd requirement? Screen readers literally do this all the time, with voices that are the classic way of making a speech synthesizer, no AI required. ESpeak is an example, or MS OneCore. The NVDA screen reader has an option for automatic language switching as does pretty much every other modern screen reader in existence. And absolutely none of these use AI models to do that switching, either.
That doesn't really change what I said though. It isn't crazy to call it useless without some form of ALS either. Given that old school synthesis has been able to do it for like 20 years or so.
No? But is it not unreasonable to expect "state of the art" TTS to be able to do at least what old school synthesis is capable of doing? Being "state of the art" means being the highest level of development or achievement in a particular field, device, procedure, or technique at a specific point in time. I don't think it's therefore unreasonable to expect supposed "state of the art" text-to-speech synthesis to do far better at everything old-school TTS could do and then some.
> Being "state of the art" means being the highest level of development or achievement in a particular field, device, procedure, or technique at a specific point in time. I don't think it's therefore unreasonable to expect supposed "state of the art" text-to-speech synthesis to do far better at everything old-school TTS could do and then some.
Non sequitur. Unless the 'art' in question is the 'art of adding features', usually this phrase is to describe the quality of a very specific development, these are often not even feature complete products.
If memory serves, the license is the ultimate source of truth on what is allowed or not. You cannot add some section that isn't in the text of the license (at least in the US and other countries that use similar legal systems) on some website and expect it to hold up in court because the license doesn't include that text. I know of a few other bigger-name projects that try to pull these kinds of stunts because they don't believe anyone is going to actually read the text of the license.
The copyright holder can set whatever license they want, including writing their own.
In this case, I'd interpret it as they made up a new licence based on MIT, but their addendum makes it non-MIT, but something else. I agree with what others said; this "new" license has internal conflicts.
Honestly, I rarely ever use openssl these days unless I must. Now, I go for Botan, or cryptography, or monocypher, any number of cryptographic library alternatives that are designed well and are really fast.
reply