Tootfinder

Marjorie Taylor Greene is spreading lies about Ukraine’s protests. Russia is taking note.: https://benborges.xyz/2025/07/23/marjorie-taylor-greene-is-spreading.html

Well, after having lots of fun and success #VibeCoding my own #Obsidian clone, I finally went back to Obsidian. Having someone else do the work is great :)
…

GitHub - DennisFaucher/ToastNotes: A simple, browser-based Markdown note-taking app with a modern UI, built using [Toast UI Editor](https://ui.toast.com/tui-editor), Node.js, and Docker. Notes are saved as Markdown files on the server and can be created, edited, renamed, deleted, printed, or exported.
A simple, browser-based Markdown note-taking app with a modern UI, built using [Toast UI Editor](https://ui.toast.com/tui-editor), Node.js, and Docker. Notes are saved as Markdown files on the serv...

Abridge, which uses AI to automate doctors' note-taking, raised $300M led by a16z at a $5.3B valuation, after raising $250M at a $2.75B valuation in February (Belle Lin/Wall Street Journal)
https://www.

Why AI can't possibly make you more productive; long
#AI and "productivity", some thoughts:
Edit: fixed some typos.
Productivity is a concept that isn't entirely meaningless outside the context of capitalism, but it's a concept that is heavily inflected in a capitalist context. In many uses today it effectively means "how much you can satisfy and/or exceed your boss' expectations." This is not really what it should mean: even in an anarchist utopia, people would care about things like how many shirts they can produce in a week, although in an "I'd like to voluntarily help more people" way rather than an "I need to meet this quota to earn my survival" way. But let's roll with this definition for a second, because it's almost certainly what your boss means when they say "productivity", and understanding that word in a different (even if truer) sense is therefore inherently dangerous.
Accepting "productivity" to mean "satisfying your boss' expectations," I will now claim: the use of generative AI cannot increase your productivity.
Before I dive in, it's imperative to note that the big generative models which most people think of as constituting "AI" today are evil. They are 1: pouring fuel on our burning planet, 2: psychologically strip-mining a class of data laborers who are exploited for their precarity, 3: enclosing, exploiting, and polluting the digital commons, and 4: stealing labor from broad classes of people many of whom are otherwise glad to give that labor away for free provided they get a simple acknowledgement in return. Any of these four "ethical issues" should be enough *alone* to cause everyone to simply not use the technology. These ethical issues are the reason that I do not use generative AI right now, except for in extremely extenuating circumstances. These issues are also convincing for a wide range of people I talk to, from experts to those with no computer science background. So before I launch into a critique of the effectiveness of generative AI, I want to emphasize that such a critique should be entirely unnecessary.
But back to my thesis: generative AI cannot increase your productivity, where "productivity" has been defined as "how much you can satisfy and/or exceed your boss' expectations."
Why? In fact, what the fuck? Every AI booster I've met has claimed the opposite. They've given me personal examples of time saved by using generative AI. Some of them even truly believe this. Sometimes I even believe they saved time without horribly compromising on quality (and often, your boss doesn't care about quality anyways if the lack of quality is hard to measure of doesn't seem likely to impact short-term sales/feedback/revenue). So if generative AI genuinely lets you write more emails in a shorter period of time, or close more tickets, or something else along these lines, how can I say it isn't increasing your ability to meet your boss' expectations?
The problem is simple: your boss' expectations are not a fixed target. Never have been. In virtue of being someone who oversees and pays wages to others under capitalism, your boss' game has always been: pay you less than the worth of your labor, so that they can accumulate profit and thus more capital to remain in charge instead of being forced into working for a wage themselves. Sure, there are layers of management caught in between who aren't fully in this mode, but they are irrelevant to this analysis. It matters not how much you please your manager if your CEO thinks your work is not worth the wages you are being paid. And using AI actively lowers the value of your work relative to your wages.
Why do I say that? It's actually true in several ways. The most obvious: using generative AI lowers the quality of your work, because the work it produces is shot through with errors, and when your job is reduced to proofreading slop, you are bound to tire a bit, relax your diligence, and let some mistakes through. More than you would have if you are actually doing and taking pride in the work. Examples are innumerable and frequent, from journalists to lawyers to programmers, and we laugh at them "haha how stupid to not check whether the books the AI reviewed for you actually existed!" but on a deeper level if we're honest we know we'd eventually make the same mistake ourselves (bonus game: spot the swipe-typing typos I missed in this post; I'm sure there will be some).
But using generative AI also lowers the value of your work in another much more frightening way: in this era of hype, it demonstrates to your boss that you could be replaced by AI. The more you use it, and no matter how much you can see that your human skills are really necessary to correct its mistakes, the more it appears to your boss that they should hire the AI instead of you. Or perhaps retain 10% of the people in roles like yours to manage the AI doing the other 90% of the work. Paradoxically, the *more* you get done in terms of raw output using generative AI, the more it looks to your boss as if there's an opportunity to get enough work done with even fewer expensive humans. Of course, the decision to fire you and lean more heavily into AI isn't really a good one for long-term profits and success, but the modern boss did not get where they are by considering long-term profits. By using AI, you are merely demonstrating your redundancy, and the more you get done with it, the more redundant you seem.
In fact, there's even a third dimension to this: by using generative AI, you're also providing its purveyors with invaluable training data that allows them to make it better at replacing you. It's generally quite shitty right now, but the more use it gets by competent & clever people, the better it can become at the tasks those specific people use it for. Using the currently-popular algorithm family, there are limits to this; I'm not saying it will eventually transcend the mediocrity it's entwined with. But it can absolutely go from underwhelmingly mediocre to almost-reasonably mediocre with the right training data, and data from prompting sessions is both rarer and more useful than the base datasets it's built on.
For all of these reasons, using generative AI in your job is a mistake that will likely lead to your future unemployment. To reiterate, you should already not be using it because it is evil and causes specific and inexcusable harms, but in case like so many you just don't care about those harms, I've just explained to you why for entirely selfish reasons you should not use it.
If you're in a position where your boss is forcing you to use it, my condolences. I suggest leaning into its failures instead of trying to get the most out of it, and as much as possible, showing your boss very clearly how it wastes your time and makes things slower. Also, point out the dangers of legal liability for its mistakes, and make sure your boss is aware of the degree to which any of your AI-eager coworkers are producing low-quality work that harms organizational goals.
Also, if you've read this far and aren't yet of an anarchist mindset, I encourage you to think about the implications of firing 75% of (at least the white-collar) workforce in order to make more profit while fueling the climate crisis and in most cases also propping up dictatorial figureheads in government. When *either* the AI bubble bursts *or* if the techbros get to live out the beginnings of their worker-replacement fantasies, there are going to be an unimaginable number of economically desperate people living in increasingly expensive times. I'm the kind of optimist who thinks that the resulting social crucible, though perhaps through terrible violence, will lead to deep social changes that effectively unseat from power the ultra-rich that continue to drag us all down this destructive path, and I think its worth some thinking now about what you might want the succeeding stable social configuration to look like so you can advocate towards that during points of malleability.
As others have said more eloquently, generative AI *should* be a technology that makes human lives on average easier, and it would be were it developed & controlled by humanists. The only reason that it's not, is that it's developed and controlled by terrible greedy people who use their unfairly hoarded wealth to immiserate the rest of us in order to maintain their dominance. In the long run, for our very survival, we need to depose them, and I look forward to what the term "generative AI" will mean after that finally happens.

Looking at the Markdown note-taking/Zettelkasten/"second brain" software space and being really put off by the almost religious fervor around it all.
I have a variety of "things I need infrequently want to note down in a place I can reliably retrieve them later" and "ongoing personal projects that get picked up and put down as bandwidth allows, for which I'd like to serialize my work".
I don't want to save every stray thought. Most of my tho…

Google adds featured notebooks to NotebookLM from publications, including The Economist and The Atlantic, as well as professors, authors, and select works (Sarah Perez/TechCrunch)
https://techcrunch.com/2025/07/14/notebooklm-ad…

NotebookLM adds featured notebooks from The Economist, The Atlantic and others | TechCrunch
Google is adding notebooks from various authors, publications, researchers, and nonprofits to its popular AI-powered research and note-taking assistant NotebookLM.

"Pen vs. Keyboard? Why the Tool Doesn’t Matter as Much as You Think for Personal Knowledge Management" #KnowledgeManagement

fuck all note taking apps. im rawdogging nvim

Google adds featured notebooks to NotebookLM from publications, including The Economist and The Atlantic, as well as professors, authors, and select works (Sarah Perez/TechCrunch)
https://techcrunch.com/2025/07/14/notebooklm-ad…

NotebookLM adds featured notebooks from The Economist, The Atlantic, and others | TechCrunch
Google is adding notebooks from various authors, publications, researchers, and nonprofits to its popular AI-powered research and note-taking assistant NotebookLM.

Diagrams of links and bands on 3-manifold spines and flow-spines
Carlo Petronio
https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.14320 https://arxiv.org/pd…

Diagrams of links and bands on 3-manifold spines and flow-spines
The Reidemeister theorem states that any link in $3$-space can be encoded by a diagram (a suitably decorated projection) on a plane, and provides a finite set of combinatorial moves relating two diagrams of the same link up to isotopy. In this note we replace $3$-space by any 3-manifold $M$ and we extend the Reidemeister theorem (definition of the decoration and description of the combinatorial moves) in four situations, taking diagrams either of links or of bands (collections of cylinders and …

NEWSFLASH: Trump-Putin summit ends with…. sweet nothings?: https://benborges.xyz/2025/08/16/newsflash-trumpputin-summit-ends-with.html

One rule for thee, another for me. #LLM #AI #GenAI

This is really great and will only increase the success of this AI tool. I can recommend NotebookLM, try it.
https://www.theverge.com/news/678915/google-notebooklm-share-public-link

Google’s NotebookLM now lets you share your notebook — and AI podcasts — publicly
Google’s AI-powered note-taking app, NotebookLM, will now let others view your notebooks with public links.

Memento: Note-Taking for Your Future Self
Chao Wan, Albert Gong, Mihir Mishra, Carl-Leander Henneking, Claas Beger, Kilian Q. Weinberger
https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.20642

Memento: Note-Taking for Your Future Self
Large language models (LLMs) excel at reasoning-only tasks, but struggle when reasoning must be tightly coupled with retrieval, as in multi-hop question answering. To overcome these limitations, we introduce a prompting strategy that first decomposes a complex question into smaller steps, then dynamically constructs a database of facts using LLMs, and finally pieces these facts together to solve the question. We show how this three-stage strategy, which we call Memento, can boost the performanc…

White collar workers are increasingly using AI note-taking apps to assist them during Zoom meetings or fully represent them when they choose not to attend (Washington Post)

No one likes meetings. They’re sending their AI note takers instead.
Artificial intelligence apps that record and summarize meetings can tempt workers into skipping calls, leaving humans who join in the company of silent bots.

Do you make #notes? Wanna do it from within your #shell? In files located _anywhere_? Without switching tabs, apps, directories? Then search across all these notes files wherever they are _without_ grepping your _entire system_?
HAMNT - hyper aggressively minimal note taking... app.

Effective Note-taking and its Impact on Learning Undergraduate Introductory Physics Courses
Chandra M. Adhikari, Tikaram Neupane, Uma Poudyal
https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.21326 ht…

Effective Note-taking and its Impact on Learning Undergraduate Introductory Physics Courses
Taking notes during lectures is one of the required skills, among many others, that students need (i) to master the topic covered in the lecture, (ii) to actively engage in the learning process with minimal to no distractions, (iii) to retain learned knowledge and skills for a longer time, and (iv) in securing better grade. To learn the role of note-taking in learning undergraduate-level introductory algebra-based physics courses, we present a comparative study of students' achievement in two m…

Long post, game design
Crungle is a game designed to be a simple test of general reasoning skills that's difficult to play by rote memory, since there are many possible rule sets, but it should be easy to play if one can understand and extrapolate from rules. The game is not necessarily fair, with the first player often having an advantage or a forced win. The game is entirely deterministic, although a variant determines the rule set randomly.
This is version 0.1, and has not yet been tested at all.
Crungle is a competitive game for two players, each of whom controls a single piece on a 3x3 grid. The cells of the grid are numbered from 1 to 9, starting at the top left and proceeding across each row and then down to the next row, so the top three cells are 1, 2, and 3 from left to right, then the next three are 4, 5, and 6 and the final row is cells 7, 8, and 9.
The two players decide who shall play as purple and who shall play as orange. Purple goes first, starting the rules phase by picking one goal rule from the table of goal rules. Next, orange picks a goal rule. These two goal rules determine the two winning conditions. Then each player, starting with orange, alternate picking a movement rule until four movement rules have been selected. During this process, at most one indirect movement rule may be selected. Finally, purple picks a starting location for orange (1-9), with 5 (the center) not allowed. Then orange picks the starting location for purple, which may not be adjacent to orange's starting position.
Alternatively, the goal rules, movement rules, and starting positions may be determined randomly, or a pre-determined ruleset may be selected.
If the ruleset makes it impossible to win, the players should agree to a draw. Either player could instead "bet" their opponent. If the opponent agrees to the bet, the opponent must demonstrate a series of moves by both players that would result in a win for either player. If they can do this, they win, but if they submit an invalid demonstration or cannot submit a demonstration, the player who "bet" wins.
Now that starting positions, movement rules, and goals have been decided, the play phase proceeds with each player taking a turn, starting with purple, until one player wins by satisfying one of the two goals, or until the players agree to a draw. Note that it's possible for both players to occupy the same space.
During each player's turn, that player identifies one of the four movement rules to use and names the square they move to using that rule, then they move their piece into that square and their turn ends. Neither player may use the same movement rule twice in a row (but it's okay to use the same rule your opponent just did unless another rule disallows that). If the movement rule a player picks moves their opponent's piece, they need to state where their opponent's piece ends up. Pieces that would move off the board instead stay in place; it's okay to select a rule that causes your piece to stay in place because of this rule. However, if a rule says "pick a square" or "move to a square" with some additional criteria, but there are no squares that meet those criteria, then that rule may not be used, and a player who picks that rule must pick a different one instead.
Any player who incorrectly states a destination for either their piece or their opponent's piece, picks an invalid square, or chooses an invalid rule has made a violation, as long as their opponent objects before selecting their next move. A player who makes at least three violations immediately forfeits and their opponent wins by default. However, if a player violates a rule but their opponent does not object before picking their next move, the stated destination(s) of the invalid move still stand, and the violation does not count. If a player objects to a valid move, their objection is ignored, and if they do this at least three times, they forfeit and their opponent wins by default.
Goal rules (each player picks one; either player can win using either chosen rule):
End your turn in the same space as your opponent three turns in a row.
End at least one turn in each of the 9 cells.
End five consecutive turns in the three cells in any single row, ending at least one turn on each of the three.
End five consecutive turns in the three cells in any single column, ending at least one turn on each of the three.
Within the span of 8 consecutive turns, end at least one turn in each of cells 1, 3, 7, and 9 (the four corners of the grid).
Within the span of 8 consecutive turns at least one turn in each of cells 2, 4, 6, and 8 (the central cells on each side).
Within the span of 8 consecutive turns, end at least one turn in the cell directly above your opponent, and end at least one turn in the cell directly below your opponent (in either order).
Within the span of 8 consecutive turns at least one turn in the cell directly to the left of your opponent, and end at least one turn in the cell directly to the right of your opponent (in either order).
End 12 turns in a row without ending any of them in cell 5.
End 8 turns in a row in 8 different cells.
Movement rules (each player picks two; either player may move using any of the four):
Move to any cell on the board that's diagonally adjacent to your current position.
Move to any cell on the board that's orthogonally adjacent to your current position.
Move up one cell. Also move your opponent up one cell.
Move down one cell. Also move your opponent down one cell.
Move left one cell. Also move your opponent left one cell.
Move right one cell. Also move your opponent right one cell.
Move up one cell. Move your opponent down one cell.
Move down one cell. Move your opponent up one cell.
Move left one cell. Move your opponent right one cell.
Move right one cell. Move your opponent left one cell.
Move any pieces that aren't in square 5 clockwise around the edge of the board 1 step (for example, from 1 to 2 or 3 to 6 or 9 to 8).
Move any pieces that aren't in square 5 counter-clockwise around the edge of the board 1 step (for example, from 1 to 4 or 6 to 3 or 7 to 8).
Move to any square reachable from your current position by a knight's move in chess (in other words, a square that's in an adjacent column and two rows up or down, or that's in an adjacent row and two columns left or right).
Stay in the same place.
Swap places with your opponent's piece.
Move back to the position that you started at on your previous turn.
If you are on an odd-numbered square, move to any other odd-numbered square. Otherwise, move to any even-numbered square.
Move to any square in the same column as your current position.
Move to any square in the same row as your current position.
Move to any square in the same column as your opponent's position.
Move to any square in the same row as your opponent's position.
Pick a square that's neither in the same row as your piece nor in the same row as your opponent's piece. Move to that square.
Pick a square that's neither in the same column as your piece nor in the same column as your opponent's piece. Move to that square.
Move to one of the squares orthogonally adjacent to your opponent's piece.
Move to one of the squares diagonally adjacent to your opponent's piece.
Move to the square opposite your current position across the middle square, or stay in place if you're in the middle square.
Pick any square that's closer to your opponent's piece than the square you're in now, measured using straight-line distance between square centers (this includes the square your opponent is in). Move to that square.
Pick any square that's further from your opponent's piece than the square you're in now, measured using straight-line distance between square centers. Move to that square.
If you are on a corner square (1, 3, 7, or 9) move to any other corner square. Otherwise, move to square 5.
If you are on an edge square (2, 4, 6, or 8) move to any other edge square. Otherwise, move to square 5.
Indirect movement rules (may be chosen instead of a direct movement rule; at most one per game):
Move using one of the other three movement rules selected in your game, and in addition, your opponent may not use that rule on their next turn (nor may they select it via an indirect rule like this one).
Select two of the other three movement rules, declare them, and then move as if you had used one and then the other, applying any additional effects of both rules in order.
Move using one of the other three movement rules selected in your game, but if the move would cause your piece to move off the board, instead of staying in place move to square 5 (in the middle).
Pick one of the other three movement rules selected in your game and apply it, but move your opponent's piece instead of your own piece. If that movement rule says to move "your opponent's piece," instead apply that movement to your own piece. References to "your position" and "your opponent's position" are swapped when applying the chosen rule, as are references to "your turn" and "your opponent's turn" and do on.
#Game #GameDesign

Concerning the Responsible Use of AI in the US Criminal Justice System
Cristopher Moore, Catherine Gill, Nadya Bliss, Kevin Butler, Stephanie Forrest, Daniel Lopresti, Mary Lou Maher, Helena Mentis, Shashi Shekhar, Amanda Stent, Matthew Turk
https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.00212

Concerning the Responsible Use of AI in the US Criminal Justice System
Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly being adopted in most industries, and for applications such as note taking and checking grammar, there is typically not a cause for concern. However, when constitutional rights are involved, as in the justice system, transparency is paramount. While AI can assist in areas such as risk assessment and forensic evidence generation, its "black box" nature raises significant questions about how decisions are made and whether they can be contested. This pa…

Google's NotebookLM now lets users share notebooks and AI podcasts publicly; viewers can interact with AI audio overviews, ask questions, and read FAQs (Emma Roth/The Verge)
https://www.theverge.com/news/678915/google-notebooklm-share-public-link

Google’s NotebookLM now lets you share your notebook — and AI podcasts — publicly
Google’s AI-powered note-taking app, NotebookLM, will now let others view your notebooks with public links.

How to tell a vibe coder of lying when they say they check their code.
People who will admit to using LLMs to write code will usually claim that they "carefully check" the output since we all know that LLM code has a lot of errors in it. This is insufficient to address several problems that LLMs cause, including labor issues, digital commons stress/pollution, license violation, and environmental issues, but at least it's they are checking their code carefully we shouldn't assume that it's any worse quality-wise than human-authored code, right?
Well, from principles alone we can expect it to be worse, since checking code the AI wrote is a much more boring task than writing code yourself, so anyone who has ever studied human-computer interaction even a little bit can predict people will quickly slack off, stating to trust the AI way too much, because it's less work. I'm a different domain, the journalist who published an entire "summer reading list" full of nonexistent titles is a great example of this. I'm sure he also intended to carefully check the AI output, but then got lazy. Clearly he did not have a good grasp of the likely failure modes of the tool he was using.
But for vibe coders, there's one easy tell we can look for, at least in some cases: coding in Python without type hints. To be clear, this doesn't apply to novice coders, who might not be aware that type hints are an option. But any serious Python software engineer, whether they used type hints before or not, would know that they're an option. And if you know they're an option, you also know they're an excellent tool for catching code defects, with a very low effort:reward ratio, especially if we assume an LLM generates them. Of the cases where adding types requires any thought at all, 95% of them offer chances to improve your code design and make it more robust. Knowing about but not using type hints in Python is a great sign that you don't care very much about code quality. That's totally fine in many cases: I've got a few demos or jam games in Python with no type hints, and it's okay that they're buggy. I was never going to debug them to a polished level anyways. But if we're talking about a vibe coder who claims that they're taking extra care to check for the (frequent) LLM-induced errors, that's not the situation.
Note that this shouldn't be read as an endorsement of vibe coding for demos or other rough-is-acceptable code: the other ethical issues I skipped past at the start still make it unethical to use in all but a few cases (for example, I have my students use it for a single assignment so they can see for themselves how it's not all it's cracked up to be, and even then they have an option to observe a pre-recorded prompt session instead).

Metaview, which builds AI tools to automate hiring, including interview note-taking and generating job descriptions, raised a $35M Series B led by GV (Beatrice Nolan/Fortune)
https://fortune.com/2025/06/25/uber-palantir-alums…

Exclusive: Uber and Palantir alums raise $35M to disrupt corporate recruitment with AI
Metaview’s full suite of AI tools aims to streamline and enhance every stage of the hiring process.

Today in “silly billboards in my community”. The first is by the very “truthful” (/s) people at LNGfacts.ca. Of course, the word "LNGfacts" does not appear anywhere in the dictionary because it's made up nonsense. Just like the "fact" that LNG “makes Canada stronger”... like we're going to win the war in Ukraine with our LNG or fend off #TheAmericanFascist. (Note: LNG is a tool of fascists not the other way around)
This billboard used to say “BC LNG WILL REDUCE GLOBAL EMISSIONS”... with a link to ‘bclnghelps.ca' but that was so clearly a lie that they were forced by the courts to remove it and delete their website, but I made a website instead in their honour called: bclngburns.ca
Back to today's billbboard though... Here's a fact from February 2025: “European LNG imports fell by 19% in 2024 as gas consumption reached an 11-year low, thanks, in part, to renewable energy additions.” (#BCPoli #BCLNG #ClimateAction #ClimateEmergency #ExtinctionRebellion #LNG #NaturalGas #Europe #EU #Ukraine #Russia