What is Hackers' Pub?

Hackers' Pub is a place for software engineers to share their knowledge and experience with each other. It's also an ActivityPub-enabled social network, so you can follow your favorite hackers in the fediverse and get their latest posts in your feed.

0

Hier werden Experimente gefordert. Hier schon mal das erste: bei der Zugbegleiterin im Sprinter hab ich gesehen, dass in ihrer App eine Verbindung mit ICE über Bamberg nach Hof aufgeploppt ist. Den ICE hätte ich eigentlich nicht bekommen, aber ich weiß, dass der Sprinter oft ein paar Minuten früher da ist, dann hätte es mit Rennen genau gereicht. Hab ihr gesagt, dass ich das versuche. In dem Moment der ICE: +25 (Personen auf der Strecke)
Das System reagiert auf mich. 😈

0
0

내 깃헙 보고 꽤 유명해 보이는 vc에서 요즘 무슨 프로젝트 하고 있냐 창업 프로그램 들어올 생각 없냐는 메일 보내서 괜히 기분 좋다 근데 대체 제 깃헙에서 뭘 보셨나요...? 전 오픈소스 기여 밖에 안 하고 있는데...

2
0
2
0
0
2

그렇게 따지면 대법 판례 변경이나 위헌판결 케이스들은 뭐가 되나요. 실제 기소가능성이 있는지는 차치하더라도, 한국 사법 역사가 무오함을 주장할 만한 거시기는 절대 못되는지라 형식적이라도 단두대 하나 정도는 좀 놔둬봐야 한다고 봅니다.

RE: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:g23eq6mc3wh6nk5kmxbobm6i/post/3mgtvkvpsun2z

0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
1

"해고했으면 큰일 날 뻔" '띨띨한' AI 믿었던 어느 기업의 고백 [그림자 전쟁 : AI의 직업침탈기] www.hankookilbo.com/news/article... "인간 상담사들도 AI에 기대가 전혀 없었던 건 아니다. 하루 최대 200통의 전화를 받느라 방광염을 달고 살던 현주도 잠시나마 기대했다. 'AI가 콜 처리를 나눠서 해주면 우리도 인간답게 일할 수 있지 않을까?' 기대는 금세 엇나갔다. AI는 상담사의 일을 도리어 더 늘렸다. 모든 고객 민원을 채가놓고는 '매뉴얼에 적힌 안내' 같은 단순한 문의만 답해줬다."

"해고했으면 큰일 날 뻔" '띨띨한' AI 믿었던 어느...

0
0
1
1
1
1

로블록스 세대는 AAA에 관심이 거의 없다, 업계가 직면한 세대 간 단절 www.gamevu.co.kr/news/article... 지금 어린이/청소년 세대가 어른이 되었을 때 기존의 대작 게임을 하지 않을지도 모른다는 것. 스위치 75만원, PS5프로 100만원 시대여서 이런 경향은 더 심해질지도.

[GDC26] 로블록스 세대는 AAA에 관심 없다? 업...

0

Yesterday, I've had one of those "I've made no progress" crashes.. I wasn't able to say anything, ANYTHING in italian. Something is wrong, I have to change something, but I'm not sure what it is.

Maybe I need to change myself for someone more capable.. hmmm, maybe

0

I'm writing this in English.

Not because English is my first language—it isn't. I'm writing this in English because if I wrote it in Korean, the people I'm addressing would run it through an outdated translator, misread it, and respond to something I never said. The responsibility for that mistranslation would fall on me. It always does.

This is the thing Eugen Rochko's post misses, despite its good intentions.

@GargronEugen Rochko argues that LLMs are no substitute for human translators, and that people who think otherwise don't actually rely on translation. He's right about some of this. A machine-translated novel is not the same as one rendered by a skilled human translator. But the argument rests on a premise that only makes sense from a certain position: that translation is primarily about quality, about the aesthetic experience of reading literature in another language.

For many of us, translation is first about access.

The professional translation market doesn't scale to cover everything. It never has. What gets translated—and into which languages—follows the logic of cultural hegemony. Works from dominant Western languages flow outward, translated into everything. Works from East Asian languages trickle in, selectively, slowly, on someone else's schedule. The asymmetry isn't incidental; it's structural.

@GargronEugen Rochko notes, fairly, that machine translation existed decades before LLMs. But this is only half the story, and which half matters depends entirely on which languages you're talking about. European language pairs were reasonably serviceable with older tools. Korean–English, Japanese–English, Chinese–English? Genuinely usable translation for these pairs arrived with the LLM era. Treating “machine translation” as a monolithic technology with a uniform history erases the experience of everyone whose language sits far from the Indo-European center.

There's also something uncomfortable in the framing of the button-press thought experiment: “I would erase LLMs even if it took machine translation with it.” For someone whose language has always been peripheral, that button looks very different. It's not an abstract philosophical position; it's a statement about whose access to information is expendable.

I want to be clear: none of this is an argument that LLMs are good, or that the harms @GargronEugen Rochko describes aren't real. They are. But a critique of AI doesn't become more universal by ignoring whose languages have always been on the margins. If anything, a serious critique of AI's political economy should be more attentive to those asymmetries, not less.

The fact that I'm writing this in English, carefully, so it won't be misread—that's not incidental to my argument. That is my argument.

5
13
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
1
0
0
1