It’s usually best if you facilitate that process if posting links, by offering some kind of summary. Otherwise, lots of people will see the link, see that you haven’t bothered to summarise it, determine that it is of low value to you, conclude that it probably won’t be of value to them, and then move on—in which case you are just causing large-scale low-level irritation.
Riis’s posts were a lot more interesting than that link. I commented
The graphs were dramatic. It’s not often you can watch software quality shoot up, as measured by a key objective metric, after a community shift towards open source code and norms.
I also found the article interesting, and I think the open source vs. closed source w/ executable vs. hidden executable issues are potentially relevant to broader AI.
There is some kind of glitch in this internet website that is replacing the content of User:Kevin’s article with the URL of the first link.
Are you posting this because it has the letters “AI” in the title?
It’s a link that might be of interest to you, you have the power to decide whether or not it is interesting to you or if you want to read it.
It’s usually best if you facilitate that process if posting links, by offering some kind of summary. Otherwise, lots of people will see the link, see that you haven’t bothered to summarise it, determine that it is of low value to you, conclude that it probably won’t be of value to them, and then move on—in which case you are just causing large-scale low-level irritation.
Riis’s posts were a lot more interesting than that link. I commented
I personally found this article interesting, but the politics surrounding a particular kind of narrow AI seems a little off-topic for Less Wrong.
I also found the article interesting, and I think the open source vs. closed source w/ executable vs. hidden executable issues are potentially relevant to broader AI.
You do know we have open threads for random links and stuff, right?