thanks for writing this

yeah this is what I meant by nuance, I just dislike when people have mostly-contradictory viewpoints that overlap in the sole fact that they believe 'AI=bad'. for example I've heard the same people irl both say things that show they believe 'AIs cannot do very simple tasks' and 'AI can be superpersuasive, manipulative'

I use pi, llama.app links to it. super minimal, easy to extend.

dating app companies have different incentives than you, and you cant afford to pay them enough to align the two. I think this is inevitable and it always greatly surprises me when people actually find love over these apps

ngl in the long term it might cooked be if someone can make nuclear powered rockets. by long term I mean in the next 10-20 years.

OSS gramerly would be really nice

libreoffice+llama.cpp ? (llamacpp isn't gpl, MIT)

ministral3-3b at crappy quants is better than internet search (faster). terrible for agentic stuff, but low thought tasks that you want to get though fast, this is perfect

the govt is more likely to have aligned incentives with you when it comes to finding a partner. imo this feels vaguely distopian (not that dating apps don't)

short-term profits

if 'AIs are a poor substitute for a human at most jobs', then even this wouldnt work. disregarding long term effects, AI must be able to do jobs to a degree for this to happen

__

'create new original things' is subjective, but people push it to an extreme. it does not need to be the opposite of 'ai can produce deepfakes' to be included. example of new original thing: https://openai.com/index/model-disproves-discrete-geometry-conjecture/

hot take, he probably should've done this before the trip