He's primarily an entertainer, doesn't mean he's a clown.

I think there are worse clowns in corpos without careers on YouTube.

Because he's seeing success and fame, while the parent (most frustratingly) isn't.

If it didn't matter to them, they wouldn't have commented what they did.

From what I've read, the phone did not (does not?) yet physically exist

All his marketing has been via AI renders

Your pet cemetery reference made me recall reviving puffy the dog in Something about Mary - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzgrVW2uZWE

Can't argue with you there. There's a ton of cool projects that people have vibecoded, and exist in domains where the fact that it's possibly insecure/poorly optimised/unmaintainable by humans doesn't really matter much. e.g. porting retro systems to, or writing new utilities for MiSTer FPGA. I love the platform, and the more stuff I can run on it, the better. Bugs are annoying, but not critical. The community gets software that may have never existed otherwise.

But still, somehow, when I see a Claudish README, it instantly gives me the ick. Write about your project. Tell us why you built it. Talk about the problems the bot helped you work through. I'm not going to judge you for not being able to code it all up yourself - but at least write the README in your own voice and tell me why you cared enough to do it.

Not that anybody needs to in this day and age with heaps of old laptops and raspberry pis and whatnot, but I knew someone with an Amiga running BSD for their mail server. A simple web server with static pages, or anything which is low volume would work just fine.

Probably the same things you do with NetBSD on a Macintosh IIci. In my case, it handles internal print services, AppleShare, DHCP and DNS.

Other than just than "we can" and historic interest, I can't imagine why anyone would choose to run System Vr4 over 4.4BSD

Nostalgia is my guess.

SVR4 on Amiga was the first SVR4 commercial release IIRC. Solaris 2.x came later, but not much later.

At Sun we had a saying for referring to garbage from the SVR4 that we had to fix, rewrite, or terminate with prejudice over time (think STREAMS, XTI, and all that, but also much of userland): 'it came from New Jersey'. So, yeah, I wouldn't want to run SVR4 for any reason other than nostalgia, and honestly not even nostalgia. For me nostalgia is for OpenSolaris and such.

Ah, good point. I had a 500 and a 1200 but I can't really remember the wider scene.

I have nostalgia for early SunOS 4 because that was the first Unix system I got access to!

I tried to get NetBSD on an Amiga way back as well and that was supposed to be my gateway from home computers to a real OS, but there was some problem with getting enough or working hard drive space or something that I can't recall exactly anymore.

So close, but still so far. It took several more years before I got some hardware that would run either NetBSD or Linux.

I can't imagine why anyone would choose to run System Vr4

With X, using an Amiga 3000/4000 as a daily driver is possible. I did use an IBM PowerPC 43P as a daily driver under AIX 3.1 for a long while (until I gave up on having ssh working on it).

The 43P was, however, paired to a humongous Intergraph CRT that I can't move across a national border because of the amount of rare earths used to make it, and was a very ample desktop for the 2010s. Until the advent of 4K monitors, I didn't have anything beating that - on a VGA connection. The Amiga is far more limited than that.

In terms of vintage Unix desktops, it's hard to beat Acorn's RISC/iX with its IXI desktop. I believe Atari Unix also had something similarly cool.

Really sad to reduce ourselves to meat-proxies.

If people can't adapt then they will get left behind. There is little value in providing a username for LLM to speak instead of you.

You are fighting a losing battle and annoying everyone in the process.

These comments are even more annoying. Sides that are winning don't have to constantly tell their opponents that they're losing. I have no idea why you and so many others seem to have attached their ego to the use of a tool that you feel the need to attack people who have complaints about the output it's often used to generate.

Use AI all you want but don’t imply that the work was done by you in any sense.

feels like congratulating a tech savvy manager

Never underestimate the impact of a good, tech savvy, manager.

They can have all the fun they want however they want, but it's not interesting or valuable to anyone else.

It's annoying how many people think they have discovered the cheat code to collect Manhattens for trinkets.

That attitude unfortunately leads to people criticizing something without having enough evidence about it in the first place, like criticizing a book and later admitting you've only seen the cover and read the summary on the back.

Criticisms should have substance.

People really need to learn that using AI to build something doesn’t automatically mean you just left every plan, spec and decision up to the AI.

Can you do that? You absolutely can. Does everyone do that? No, absolutely not.

It’s not a black and white issue. And, honestly, it’s quite narrow sighted and narrow minded to think so.

The dev is not the middleman because Claude is not the author. Claude is the tool.

Because plagiarization is not illegal. It’s just unethical and dishonest, and in certain contexts where your work is directly related to your status or compensation, it gets you in trouble. Copyright violation is a specific type of plagiarism that is illegal, but LLM output is not and, in current legal understanding, can not be copyrighted.

Using the services of a human editor is not plagiarism, and mere editing is not considered coauthorship. Mentioning or thanking the editor is just a courtesy, or a contractual obligation at most. LLMs don’t need thanks so most people probably agree it’s fine not to mention it in a casual blog post if its part really is just editorial, brainstorming aid, or similar. (But context-specific terms and conditions apply, obviously.)

What is absolutely not editorial use is making a hundred-word prompt and asking an LLM to expand it to a thousand-word blog post, or a thousand-line computer program, just like it wouldn’t be to ask or pay another human to do it for you. At most you’re then a coauthor of the LLM. This should be obvious, really, we have literally hundreds of years of history on the ethics and norms of assigning authorship on creative works. LLMs should change very little of that.

And then there’s the quality issue. If there were a human author that ghost-wrote blog posts or program code for people, and their output would always have the same known quality and accuracy issues, I’d want to be warned rather than having to spend time on figuring it out every time. Reputation matters.

Obviously LLM-generated text generally doesn’t have the right quality. People aren’t just annoyed by it being LLM-generated, they are annoyed because the writing is bad in a soulless way.

It's simply a pretty good proxy for lack of quality and care.

As I’ve also repetitively said, it’s simply dishonest and plagiarizing to offload most of the work you (explicitly or lying by omission) claim as "yours". I can’t understand people who think it’s just fine.

(concurring opinion)

LLM generated text lacks a certain "soul" to it, and it becomes more and more empty the more places one reads it.

It has a certain quality to it that, when read again and again, feels hollow. That hollowness comes not only from the text itself and the same sentence structures and turns of a phrase, but also (and yes, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signs_of_AI_writing#... ) that it suggests that the author didn't do more than massage the text with their eyeballs (as my high school Latin teacher accused me of doing).

And so, why should I (a human mind running on wet stuff and fueled with caffeine and various sugars from my morning soda and breakfast roll) pay any significant amount of my limited attention during a day on something that shows no indication that it was ever had its human co-author think about a single word that was put into the page?

And sometimes, the text belies that it wasn't written by a human as it misses things that are part of the human experience (or adds things that are not). "Keymap, disk, partition sizes, package set — then it shows you what it is about to do. Real time, with the long waits taken out." No human would write that. No human proofread it.

There is a deluge of content out there. Far too much for me to read everything that might be interesting. Text that looks like it's written entirely by an AI is more likely to be uninteresting than something that was crafted by a human.

If the page itself hasn't shown indication of a few seconds or minutes of a human touch... how much time should I spend reading it to see if it might be interesting to read more or look into the project?

I primarily mean because of UNIX. And possibly also Amiga.

Being an owner of Apollo V4 ITX UEB, I wondered what about 68080. With 64-bit and AMMX vector extensions. But the website briefly mentions "and on today's accelerator hardware". MiniMig is also not mentioned, but at least PiStorm is.

With regards to 68080, the toolchain that can make use of all features of 68080, is based on some old GCC and currently hosted on Linux amd64 which is a shame. And if original Amiga target is desired, this toolchain can do it too, and it is told to be more optimal than other compilers, especially self-hosted ones. GCC first lost ability to run on Amiga, then lost ability to generate m68k code.

I like that the screen recordings are ‘Real time, with the long waits taken out.’