They’re adding vibecoded shortcuts (the high level scripting for Apple devices). Hopefully that means they worked out some of the long-existing bugs and missing features, but I’m not optimistic. Still, could be a useful tool, especially for less tech-literate people.
If they are ok with shortcuts being vibecoded, maybe it's time to expose a proper programming language to the end users as well.
All my automation shortcuts can be easily explained in pseudo code under 5 minutes, but it took me ages to put them together because that weird UI/UX forcing me to drag-and-drop squares around to manipulate data structures. Programmers hate it, non-programmers can't understand it, it is not designed for anybody.
It's funny how they went from AppleScript -> "oh writing scripts is too complicated for users, let's create Automator" -> "Automator is too simple, let's create Shortcuts" -> now with shortcuts being generated by language models they need a structured scripting language again.
AppleScript even had "dictionaries" declaring their commands and everything, would have been perfect way teach LLMs how to automate applications.
I've never been more frustrated programming something than when I tried to build a non-trivial Shortcut. Things that I could have expressed in a quick script took me literal hours to compose and debug using the WYSIWYG interface. And since there's no version control, any mistake runs the risk of dislocating an element or messing up an input/output connection and breaking everything permanently.
It increases the value app developers might get out of offering shortcut actions - similar to how the advent of MCPs seems to have kicked a bunch of SaaS vendors into offering a clean API, the advent of Siri being able to tap into shortcut actions - and script them - might make it feel more worthwhile to app devs to open up deep functions.
I just tested this myself. I wrote “flip the reduce white point toggle accessibility option in the settings app” and it worked perfectly. Run once to set it and run again to disable it.
I stopped reading earlier, when they used superscript without explaining its meaning. Its clearly meant for someone with more domain expertise than me, with my hazy recollections of college math.
In this context, A is a set, and A + A represents the set of all sums of pairs of elements drawn from A.
The paper doesn't use A^2, but rather |A|^2, which is ordinary squaring of an integer. It does use AA, which is the set of products of pairs of elements drawn from A.
The general tone (it just feels like it's an LLM) but also check the account history. It's a 2018 account that had never commented until today's flood of suspicious comments.
Stylistic tells: "The tool-call ambiguity point", "—", "the negative space", "The retry-nudge layer", "the right shape", "→", "context drift"
Correctness tells: find exits with 0 when no matches were found, not 1. LLMs do get confused about tool call results sometimes but it's nowhere near as bad as needing "[manual corrections] multiple times an hour".
Contextual tells: see their account history and other comments.
There would have to be a person pretending to be blind on the other side of the phone call, recording your answers. At that point is it not just easier to have that person do the labeling themselves?
> Thank you for joining the Be My Eyes community! Be My Eyes connects blind and low-vision users with volunteers who can provide visual interpretation of smartphone images, to companies that provide them with services or employ them, and to artificial intelligence (“AI”) tools that analyze and describe images submitted by our users.
I thought you were being cynical, but yeah the ToS basically says that as well.
I disagree. There is more content out there than I can read in many lifetimes, so I have to be selective. LLM generated text (like any text) can be well put together on the surface level but require deeper consideration to see the flaws, and of course this takes more effort than the writing did.
A human-written piece indicates someone believes in it enough to put in enough effort to write it up nicely, so it works as a heuristic of underlying quality.
All true, but how do you distinguish human-written from AI-written or a hybrid? They all have an author's name attached. You would have to limit your reading to people you know personally. (Which isn't a terrible idea actually.) Otherwise it's a judgment call, which inevitably comes down to a question of writing quality. "This has to be AI because it's so terrible." But humans are perfectly capable of writing terribly (that is in fact where the LLM learned it) and LLMs can even write well occasionally, including with human intervention. So I decided that if I'm using quality as a proxy to guess at authorship, why not just forget authorship and make quality primary. Basically since authorship is unknowable I'm declaring it irrelevant. It's not ideal but these are the times we're living in.
The level that they managed to fit everything inside of a simple-looking package was so high that the CEO of ULA (the Boeing/Lockheed Martin rocket company) thought they were lying when they first showed pictures [1].
The reason he was so skeptical is that for other engine manufacturers, there are generally different teams working on different parts of the engine, and because Convay's law the final artifact generally ends up looking like the organizational boundaries of the company that made it, with cleanly separated parts for every sub-organization that you can see in the final assembly. One of the things that SpaceX is good at is optimization across these kinds of boundaries, integrating hardware in ways that would be difficult for a more traditional organization.
The way it was explained to me early on was that the newest Raptor engines had simply eliminated many of the different types of test sensors, specifically because sufficient testing had been performed that they weren't getting useful data out of them any more.
That photo is thrown around a lot in the Spacex fan community. At least it was. I think the photo is at least two years old.
I suspect that many of those pipes are for testing instrumentation of the early models. And those that remain necessary, might be built into channels in the engine body now, like how a carburettor is built. That's much simpler and cheaper to manufacture and maintain, not to mention more reliable.
The TVC is clearly visible on one of the center engines in that photo, thank you. It's just about the only thing on there other than the thrust chamber, turbopumps, and bell!
It seems like running with sandbox-exec should remove pretty much all the potential for an app to cause harm… is there a reason why it’s not the default, especially for these certificate-less apps?
Just checked. Still needs it. I don't have Rosetta installed and I don't want to install Rosetta just to be able to use a game controller with DuckStation or Aethersx2. When I can also connect a PS4 controller and not need any of that.
This appears to only be in the Steam beta - the version available for download still requires Rosetta. There doesn't seem to be a direct download for the beta - you have to opt into it after installing Steam.
reply