Sorry but I think you’re requirement that something only be “the art” if any arbitrary person can critique it is off.
The frontier labs are working on the state of the art but it’s just art that you aren’t allowed to see.
Unfortunately.
It is work using the principles of the art, obviously.
But "state of the art" implies the highest state of general availability, not just in terms of access to some product, but of use of the ideas, concepts, methodologies etc.
Anthropic and OpenAI have "cutting edge" models; the state of the art is behind the cutting edge.
The state of the art is the best open source, open weights model available. More or less by definition.
That's an interesting and possibly useful distinction , but it seems unique to you. Spreading it as "We should categorize the AIs this way" would be a good argument.
But the way SOTA is generally understood by other users of the language, it refers to exactly the team, technology, & techniques defining the cutting edge in any field, regardless of the whether the technology & techniques are available outside of that team...
The Stack Exchange poster seems to be confusing "State Of The Art" with "Best Practices".
Meanwhile, Wikipedia specifically calls out "Cutting Edge" as specifically synonymous with "SOTA" [0], Cambridge defines it as "the best and most modern of its type" with zero reference to general vs limited availability in the definition or any of it's numerous examples [1], and the same from Merriam-Webster [2].
Having studied and worked in multiple technology fields ranging from software to mechanical & aero engineering for four+ decades, your post is literally the first time I've ever seen anyone even try to make such a distinction between SOTA vs CE. I think it could be a very useful distinction if it were to get into common usage, but IME it is far closer to unique than common. The sibling comments to your assertions show pretty much the same thing - it would be useful, but it isn't common.
Promote it as common and you'll find pushback. Promote it as novel and useful, and it'll likely spread.
I appreciate this distinction. The are multiple senses of SOTA and one that has been taking on greater mindshare is as a synonym of “the best available”. By rebasing on SOTA as generally available and understood versus cutting edge, which has limited distribution and leads the way, we expand the vocabulary we have available to describe what’s going on. Thanks.
I miss that as well but more than likely (at least in the US) that "curated" channel you use to listen to was probably owned by Clear Channel and probably the same exact content played in every other city where everyone else felt like it was for them as well.
Clear Channel didn't really expand in a major way until about the mid-1990s, owning 43 radio stations in 1995, following legislation relaxing station ownership limits (for both radio and television) in 1992.
For those recalling 1980s or earlier radio in the US, the situation was rather more diverse, particularly in ownership, though fairly narrow segment programming was becoming the norm as professional "programmers" entered the field.
More largely, the history of popular music has run through multiple phases of diversification and consolidation as new performance, recording, and distribution technologies emerged. I covered this referencing the work of Charles Perrow some years ago: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24930562>.
I'm confused by your answer, the previous post doesn't seem to be about vibe-coding at all.
It seems to be more about:
1. auto grouping duplicate security reports
2. auto validating if they are likely viable or likely nonsense
3. auto checking if they have recently been patched
4. auto assessing if they likely "invalide" for other reasons (e.g. they are for a very old long time no longer maintained Linux version, out of tree drivers, etc.)
I mean practically all of that isn't trivial to get working in a way appropriate for the Linux security mailing list and comes with many not so obvious complications. But also non of that is vibe coding and in most cases this is is more about AI doing a per-assemsment of send security issues to speed up the review of them, then it is about the AI doing the final decision.
At the end of the day, we would rather have a more stable and bug-free kernel than not.
It's not that much work for me anymore to report and even fix that obscure monitor driver bug that sometimes causes my machine to bootloop, unless I boot without graphics and start the XOrg server manually.
I often find myself surprised at how easily frontier models are able to find bugs across abstraction layers, that only original authors can comprehend. We need more positivity around these contributions as well.
To add to this, as long as the diff representing the removal of the driver is kept in the git history it would be trivial for someone in the far future to say to an AI agent:
"Please take this linux source and patch the Bus mouse driver back in but match the new driver interface".
With code preserved in git history it's never actually "removed". It's just, disconnected.
reply