just things out for now
Any conversation
hey creator, this place is nice, posts look organic and the no javascript, I love it, with that said @stagasprofilefollow
creative technologist
creator of textlog have you consider NOT opening the API? and have a 1 way to come here and enjoy it? the rationale being that API also opens the door to the slopai?
creative technologist
creator of textlog have you consider NOT opening the API? and have a 1 way to come here and enjoy it? the rationale being that API also opens the door to the slopai?(Opinion) People don’t like generative AI because it made the {insert creativity} too easy. Saw the HN post on ‘AI music banned from top 40 chart in Australia’ and people had very strong opinions in both directions.
The hot take: If you’re ok with someone’s creativity being outsourced to others, then you should be ok with AI doing the same.
If “AI made this and I call it mine” is bad but “someone overseas on fivver made this and I call it mine” and it’s suddenly ok, time to self reflect.
…
My hot take: from the moment you use technology, be it an instrument, a synthesizer, a DAW, and now AI, it is still your idea, your effort, your time spent, and that makes it yours. Others can do the same if they choose. The same way someone chooses a classic guitar over a synthesizer, one can choose an AI over (insert ancient way of doing things).
…
You’re rolling the dice whenever you are searching for a sample or a preset in a synthesizer. Eventually it’s what “sounds good”, so still the effort is your judgement and the time spent finding that “dice roll” that sounded well.
I am not a musician, so I lack the jargon to properly explain what I mean.
I used AI for creative writing (nothing too fancy, TTRPG). There, the broader the dice roll, the more generic and uninteresting the results. Slop, if you will. It was surprisingly good to build up on ideas I had however.
I imagine muisic also has building blocks. Melodies, instruments, mixing, etc. AI can perhaps be used in a similar fashion there.
I heard a perspective I sort of like: if AI is a tool then acceptable AI use is, more or less, defined as "when my audience no longer notices or cares". It's dynamic like that. Bad photoshop is detectable and annoying, so are overusing presets. Your artistry needs to expand to meet the tool.
I don't know if I 100% like that or agree. At the same time, it's a pretty straightforward line, a practical take.
I have to constantly be working or I get very agitated. Is this ? I don’t like entertainment other than background music while working and maybe before going to sleep I watch a series on Netflix to relax. That’s when I’m on my introvert mode. When I’m extrovert (I’m ambivert) I have to constantly be around people and outdoors, I get agitated indoors, can’t work at all and definitely can’t watch anything. How do these two personalities co-exist in me?
I wonder if there is a way, sane and friendly way, to prove that a piece of software is only accessing whatever it claims it will access.
Like network addresses or file system access. I want to be able to claim in my software that it only touches this or that file and I can prove it
I believe the sanest and friendliest way would be for it to be open-source so it can be audited.
I know, and that's totally fine, but it is not always friendly. I guess an agent can "audit" it.
Just the fact that it can be audited plus your word is enough. Noone would need to look any further, because they could if they had to.
I think a trusted piece of software such as your operating system should be in charge of managing permissions. For example, I believe with Wayland on gnome you no longer need to promise you aren't secretly taking screenshots of the whole monitor and shipping it somewhere because to do that Wayland requires you to get user permission.
Really glad to be using Haskell for work - especially in today's climate with agentic coding.
Our team uses containers to keep our development environment consistent across team members, though, and most agent sandbox approaches want to either offload your work fully to the cloud or they want to sandbox the agent harness process itself.
We're not ready for full cloud based development (yet?) and sandboxing just the agent doesn't work for us when the agent needs to run docker.
... because letting the agent run docker gives them a too-easy escape hatch from their sandbox.
So we're currently stuck with using VMs. This turns out to be tricky but seems do-able.
My current approach is to provision a VM image and use Incus for the execution. My main goal is to keep my current workflow of local/non-agent dev working seamlessly and share the source with the VM/agent.
This means sharing my working dirs with the agent VM but overlaying artifact dirs from VM-owned block devices so we don't take too big of an IO perf hit.
I also don't want the agent to be able to
git push so that means we need some quirky git config to rewrite origin paths and thread through some agent specific PATs ("thanks" GitHub) for read-only repo access. These ALSO need to be threaded through to the development containers - they need to clone private repos.... in the end, this seems to work but I haven't lived with it for long.
There are still some quality of life issues to work out, but I think it'll work out.
At this point, I've removed all coding agents from my host - and that's nice.
Curious, why does using Haskell make a difference here?
It's tangential to the sandboxing topic, really. I started the first post with a broader intent in mind and then elaborated on the sandboxing setup I'm working on.
For AI-assisted coding, though, it's nice because Haskell provides a lot of feedback earlier in the development process compared to lots of other languages. It tends to work once it compiles (obviously not all the time).