In an utopia, yes, but I have raised the argument also elsewhere: who wants to be a maintainer of a paper forever? So, yes, science is indeed a lot like open source software, but more like the write-only software platforms and repositories are full of. Replication is also a lot more important than reproducibility in most fields and for most questions.

There is no moderation, so, yes, anything (legal) goes, I suppose. But to the point: it is interesting that even CERN is taking a hit from the LLM crawlers.

I suspect that the growth in LLM "crawlers" is part traditional crawlers and a growing part WebFetch tools agents use directly on behalf of users.

Personally, my page fetch count is way up because I have a custom deep research agent, I've almost weaned myself off traditional search, but that agent is fetching dozens of pages, like I used to click through a bunch of search results to figure out which are relevant, adjust my query, etc...

That now happens at a higher frequency and volume through my agent.

> agents use directly on behalf of users

Could well be, who knows? But, well, then, in a sense you're a part of the problem, causing a DoS for infrastructures and other, human users.

More people can serve up static markdown for the agents with `Content-Type: application/markdown`, CDNs work really well. I think both sides of this dynamic would find it beneficial.

I suspect much of the infra stress is on all the "enhancements" found in the modern web application and the targeted advertising ecosystem

Ref.:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49674498

"The average success rate for generating a patch that fully resolved the vulnerability (without materially changing application behavior) was just 26.0 percent,' wrote Director of Security Research Keith Hoodlet, adding that even patches that did fix the flaw also mucked up the application’s behavior 20 percent of the time."

"'Conversely, LLM-generated patches did not resolve the vulnerability, added a new vulnerability, or both, an average 53.9% of the time,' Hoodlet said."

These are some interesting points. I wonder: why?

Well, I suppose the rolling out of 5G must happen at some point, but otherwise his/her take in Section III.A is spot on and the most important takeaway.

5G seems pretty widly available here in Sweden in my experience, even in the countryside. Not that the speeds are actually better than 4G, but the indicator say 5G as I'm writing this in a tent in the middle of nowhere. :)

I guess other countries are further behind?

With 5G in particular I think it's important that people talk about which specific technologies they're referring to.

In the US at least, low-band or extended range 5G is widely available and has been for some time (and I'm talking about the "real" 5G low-band, not the BS marketing speak AT&T used for a while). Mid and high band 5G, or 5G ultra capacity, is much less available but if course it only really makes sense in dense cities.

I'm surprised that low band 5G isn't widely available in most 1st world countries, as again it's been here in the US for many years now.

On raw coverage of 5g, only a few much denser countries are better. You live in basically the best 4g and 5g covered, sparsely populated country on earth :) most countries are not just further behind.

American cities also generally seem to have good 5G coverage with 4G frequencies being repurposed for 5G and 4G overall being put on life support as it’s phased out

> I guess other countries are further behind?

Yes, and even in Europe. The demand-led need was badly misunderstood or anticipated in my opinion as operators were hesitant to invest (and some big ones still are). In this sense, 7G is a pipe dream (but of course worth researching as such).

Lucky you. On some parts of my commute, in an urban area of 10M people, I am happy if I get some 3G.

Don't just look at the indicator on your phone though. Providers are free to scheme with those. Some honestly show the icon when you are on 5G. Others use the option of showing it when you are on 4G (not even 5G NSA) but the network offers 5G on the cell.

The marketing guys got involved with this indicator and completely ruined its trustworthiness.

I've been away from Twitter phone nerds scene for quite a while, what do they use now for those details? Is it still ##service## or something else entirely?

There's apps for that but yes the built in one is also still there.

I think it's not so much a nerd thing rather than a false advertising one though.

It has been going between 4G and 5G today while hiking, so if they lie it isn't all the time at least.

But what do you suggest instead (on Android, a Pixel specifically)?

It depends on the provider. They can choose what the logo means.

Ps I looked it up, it can show it if the cell has 5G even if you're not connected to that at the moment, not if the network has it somewhere.

But each provider makes different choices. They have like 4 options to choose from.

You can use a network monitor app (or the built in one but it's a bit technical) to see what you're really connected to.

Isn't the icon decided by the operating system?

The operating system vendor can be bribed. AT&T for example asked Apple to show a 5GE icon when an “advanced” LTE network is in use.

That must be a US specific thing. Most phones here in europe aren't bound to a specific provider.

As a matter of fact, the only phone I ever got with a mobile plan was my first mobile phone, a Motorola RAZR flip phone more than 2 decades ago.

No for 4G/5G the line gets a bit blurry there unfortunately.

R.I.P., E.O.W. (His later ideas were better.)

How come?

"... after a viral warning from a former Anthropic engineer said AI could end humanity."

It just goes on and on and on.

A good read with a positive concluding paragraph. Happens also elsewhere.

So sad.