ideally users could be banned for posting LLM outputs as if they were authored by humans https://www.pangram.com/history/49335ddf-118d-43e4-9340-a58a...
replyI think not "ideally" in any case.
Rather "practically" could be banned, for what badness?
replyIt doesn't claim it was authored by humans. It is clearly the work product of human who transparently is using AI.
The work product if it works as claimed is rather amazing. Maybe even an inflection in AI use, if it would be sustainable.
The generated post is even in the repo: https://github.com/christopherkarani/Wax/blob/main/SHOW_HN_P...
replyWould wax also be usable as a simple variant of a hybrid search solution? (i.e., not in the context of "agent memory" where knowledge added earlier is worth less than knowledge added more recently)
replyYes—Wax can absolutely be used as a general hybrid search layer, not just an
“agent memory” feature.
reply It already combines text + vector retrieval and reranking, so you can treat
remember(...) as ingestion and recall(query:) as search for any document
corpus.
It does not natively do “recency decay” (newer beats older) out of the box in
the core call signature. If you want recency weighting, add timestamps in
metadata and apply post-retrieval re-scoring or filtering in your app logic
(or query-time preprocessing).
Any plans to make it available to other languages via bindings?
reply