One of the largest issues of LSP is that each language implementation needs to do everything separately, and that means each language will work differently.

Imagine if all the editing tools in microsoft word were specific to the language you used, and if you mixed German and English, each had different tooling.

Now if you mix Rust, HTML, JS, and CSS, they'll all have separate tooling, seperate "go to definition", and separate refactoring. Worst of all, none of them can see the definitions of the other ones.

So what you'd actually want to do is parse each language into your AST, with proper annotations as to what is what, and have all the "go to definition", the UI rendering, highlighting, refactoring, etc all done generically by the IDE ontop.

Which is much much closer to how Jetbrains IntelliJ does it, and why their tooling can handle "find usages" on an HTML element to find matching querySelector in .js files and matching selectors in .css

And if you subscribe to the AI stuff, you'd also want your AI to operate on this AST so it can learn skills that generalize across all languages.

That's always been the deal: they can build their OS on the work of many volunteers, and we in turn can build our projects on top of the OS.

Google is trying to take from the community potluck without giving anything back.

The community is providing Google with nothing. A fraction of a sliver of market share running GrapheneOS isn't going to make Google care.

The community potluck has been replaced with a Google Play-shaped stock exchange over a decade ago.

Google also made that argument, and further argued that they could do it better.

Which is why they planned to replace the entire kernel and services with zircon and fuchsia, and a new Android runtime ontop.

Guess what, turns out Google actually does need the community contributions of the Linux and Java projects.

What community contributions? Linux is mostly corporately developed with Google being one of the major contributors.

Google also fully maintains the ART VM running on Android - despite Oracle, the owner and developer of Java - famously wanting a piece of it.

What community contributions are you talking about there? Where does this myth come from?

> What community contributions? Linux is mostly corporately developed with Google being one of the major contributors.

Linux has a lot of corporate contributors, but it's been a long standing problem that many of these only add new features that their new pet project needs. Long-term maintenace and improvements is often done by volunteers, and many important subsystems rely entirely on volunteer work.

This was also famously an issue with e.g. AMD's GPU driver, which was appreciated as it allowed a mainstream GPU to be fully supported with an in-kernel driver, but the disadvantage that now volunteers had to maintain hundredthousands of LOC of code, most of which was autogenerated hardware interfaces with little documentation, which made refactoring and cleanup work almost impossible.

> Google also fully maintains the ART VM running on Android - despite Oracle, the owner and developer of Java - famously wanting a piece of it.

Had you followed the release notes, you'd have noticed that that hasn't been the case since Android 8 Oreo, when the entire Java standard library on Android was switched from Apache Harmony to OpenJDK. That's why Android was finally able to move beyond Java 7 and introduce modern functionality, fix the broken NIO implementation, and add JSR-310 Date and Time fuctions, just to mention a few of the improvements since then.

These have been developed by the Java community, including corporations and individual contributors.

Who is this "he" you're talking about? Or were you referring to an LLM? If so, the correct pronoun would be "it".

Your english is really good, except for that little mistake.

I am 100% guitly of anthropomorphizing LLMs, sorry.

I actually managed to travel from one star system to another in DSP without warp, they happened to be just close enough that a full inventory of fuel was just barely enough to make the trip.

Tbh, I don't see the use case for Robinson when Winkel-Tripel exists. For almost all use cases where you need a political world map, Winkel-Tripel is the better choice.

Equal earth also has its uses, it's a neat and clean map, but has more distortion in shape, which might be undesirable.

We've had mathematical problems solved by brute force in the past.

We've then improved that through systems similar to prolog intentionally searching a tree.

Then systems added heuristics for which paths in that tree are likely to be taken.

The LLMs are just using slightly more accurate heuristics for this task.

But the real measure of understanding are tasks that are not so strictly constrained.

If a foundation model company burns billions of tokens to brute force an LLM into finding a new training algorithm that e.g. allows recurrent networks without catastrophic forgetting...

I won't really care that it didn't have a "real measure of understanding". I'll care that it has made an even more dangerous technology, which needs work to make it aligned.

There's a simple rule: someone of higher intelligence can successfully pretend to be someone of lower intelligence, but not the other way around.

Humans can successfully pretend to be LLMs, but LLMs are still not successful at pretending to be Humans.

ASI "matches or exceeds humans in at least one field"

AGI is defined as "matches or exceeds humans in all fields"

Superintelligence is defined as "strictly exceeds humans in all fields"

Humans are AGI simply because if they want to, they can achieve it (it just takes some effort).

Humans are general intelligence, not artificial general intelligence. :)

Have you seen the raw images you get out of those cameras? They're still the same grainy low res webcam sensors they were 10 years ago (if not worse), most of the improvement is just AI hallucinating details.

If there will be a GrapheneOS image for the Pixel 11 without MTE, could that open the door for GrapheneOS on a lot more phones that support AOSP?

We don't plan to make official GrapheneOS releases for any more devices without MTE. If we decided to provide support for the Pixel 11 series, it likely won't be branded as GrapheneOS to make it clear it isn't on the same level.

It would be inconsistent to require Motorola to provide MTE support and then to support the Pixel 11 without it.

There are no phones directly supported by AOSP. Motorola is helping us support their devices and port our features to them. We have to do an immense amount of work on it ourselves for Pixels and already did a lot of it for the Pixel 11 devices. Other devices are missing more than MTE.

Regarding the differentiated branding, I've been hoping for a GrapheneLite for many years now.

Regarding direct AOSP support, there are many devices that work fine with just the generic system image, which I'd count as direct AOSP support.

As far as I understand, broad device support is a non-goal for the GrapheneOS project. They are striving for decent security/privacy rather than wanting to attach their name and resources to mediocre standards.

I believe nothing prevents other individuals and organisations from building what you're suggesting with GrapheneOS code and ideas.

I would argue that "works fine" != "direct support" when discussing vendors and platforms. Support is a commitment signal, not just a technical capability.