I believe you set env vars on Windows through System Properties -> Advanced -> Environment Variables.

I believe you just need to set the env var OLLAMA_HOST to 0.0.0.0:11434 and then restart Ollama.

What OS is your server running? Do you have an Android phone or an iPhone?

In either case all you likely need to do is expose the port and then access your server by IP on that port with an appropriate client.

In Ollama you can expose the port to your local network by changing the bind address from 127.0.0.1 to 0.0.0.0

Regarding clients: on iOS you can use Enchanted or Apollo to connect to Ollama.

On Android there are likely comparable apps.

Please, enlighten me - how do you propose we use the term “AI” in a way that’s more useful than a definition that includes machine learning, large language models, and computer vision?

I doubt I’ll agree with your definition, but I’m curious to see how you would exclude machine learning, computer vision, LLMs, etc., from your definition. My assumption is that your definition is going to be either a derivative of “AI is anything computers can’t do yet” or based on pop culture / sci fi, but maybe you’ll surprise me.

To be clear, I’m a software engineer; I’m not speaking in sales speak. I’ve derived my understanding of the term from a combination of its historical context and how it’s used in both professional and academic contexts, not from marketing propaganda or from sci fi and pop culture. I’m certainly aware of the hype machine that’s ongoing, but there are also tons of fascinating advancements happening on a regular basis, and the term “AI” is at minimum a useful term to refer to technologies that leverage similar techniques.

it’s not ‘ai’, it’s just a poorly trained voice recognition system that’s trying to decipher any random person’s voice.

I’m baffled that you can say “It’s not ‘AI,’ it’s a machine learning powered speech to text system” with a straight face.

Even if we were to agree that ML-powered speech to text isn’t AI (and I don’t agree to that premise, for the record), there’s still the matter of processing the transcription to transform it into something that can be understood by the point of sale system - aka natural language processing. And while that NLP could be implemented without use of an LLM, given LLM’s current level of hype and the ease with which they can be shoved into any given product, I wouldn’t bet on Taco Bell execs approving such an approach, much less asking for it.

I hear more complaints about Windows from Windows users than from people who solely or primarily use other OSes. Unless you count “Okay… so why don’t you do something about it?” as a complaint, that is.

I think that makes you “the guy who really likes to talk about Linux.”

The original Switch was constantly sold out. I assume there were supply issues. It’s likely that it would have outsold the Switch 2 if they’d had the same supply.

I’m a professional software engineer and I’ve been in the industry since before Kubernetes was first released, and I still found it overwhelming when I had to use it professionally.

I also can’t think of an instance when someone self-hosting would need it. Why did you end up looking into it?

I use Docker Compose for dozens of applications that range in complexity from “just run this service, expose it via my reverse proxy, and add my authentication middleware” to “in this stack, run this service with my custom configuration, a custom service I wrote myself or forked, and another service that I wrote a Dockerfile for; make this service accessible to this other service, but not to the reverse proxy; expose these endpoints to the auth middleware and for these endpoints, allow bypassing of the auth middleware if an API key is supplied.” And I could do much more complicated things with Docker if I needed to, so even for self-hosters with more complex use cases than mine, I question whether Kubernetes is the right fit.

I genuinely don’t understand why people here are taking it so hard that I wish the Immich devs were using semver.

Because you didn’t say that; you said “Breaking changes in a point release? Not cool” and later “I’m basing this off the guidelines at semver.org.”

I’m paraphrasing your comments from memory, to be clear, so apologies if I misquoted you.

It certainly felt to me like you were assuming that this project was using semver and was not following it well, not that you wouldn’t want to use a project that receives this many breaking changes / that doesn’t follow semver. Those complaints both make a lot more sense to me - and I’ve seen many people say similar things about Immich in the past. In fact, it’s a big part of why I haven’t migrated from Photoprism to Immich myself - in this regard they’re complete opposites.

I don’t think there’s any room to argue that announcing a 1.x with a change the developers say is a breaking change, which is what Immich have done, fits within the semver.org guidelines.

That wasn’t the argument.

Following semver is optional. If a project doesn’t explicitly state it is following semver, it shouldn’t be assumed that it is. With regard to Immich in particular, a cursory review of their documentation makes it clear that they are not following semver. Literally, go to https://immich.app/ and read the text at the very top of the page:

⚠️ The project is under very active development. Expect bugs and changes.

Go to the repo and you’ll see the README, which states at the very top:

• ⚠️ The project is under very activedevelopment.
• ⚠️ Expect bugs and breaking changes.

If you can read that, see that they’re on major version 1 with a minor version over 100, and you still think they’re using semver, then that’s on you.

The devs have stated they won’t be using semver until they consider Immich production ready, and that moving to a 1.x version from 0.x was a mistake made some time ago. If you want to think about it as though it is semver, consider the major version to still be 0. See https://github.com/immich-app/immich/discussions/5086#discussioncomment-7593227 for example.

As this project is clearly not following semver, the semver guidelines aren’t applicable and haven’t been violated.

I don’t think there’s any room to argue

Even if semver were applicable, in this case, I would still disagree. The text from semver.org states:

8. Major version X (X.y.z | X > 0) MUST be incremented if any backward incompatible changes are introduced to the public API.

It doesn’t state that any backward incompatible changes, period, require a major version increase, only changes to the public API. I would personally argue that the deployment configuration is part of the public API, but not all project owners agree with me. Even if they do agree, they might say that this was not a documented deployment configuration and thus not part of the public API, and that it therefore doesn’t necessitate an increase to the major version, but as they knew that people were using that configuration, anyway, they included a note about a potentially breaking change as a courtesy to those users.

Immich isn’t a library (the main use case for semver is dependencies that will be pulled into other projects) and as far as I know they don’t state that they use semver.

This is what I would try first. It looks like 1337 is the exposed port, per https://github.com/nightscout/cgm-remote-monitor/blob/master/Dockerfile

x-logging:
  &default-logging
  options:
    max-size: '10m'
    max-file: '5'
  driver: json-file

services:
  mongo:
    image: mongo:4.4
    volumes:
      - ${NS_MONGO_DATA_DIR:-./mongo-data}:/data/db:cached
    logging: *default-logging

  nightscout:
    image: nightscout/cgm-remote-monitor:latest
    container_name: nightscout
    restart: always
    depends_on:
      - mongo
    logging: *default-logging
    ports:
      - 1337:1337
    environment:
      ### Variables for the container
      NODE_ENV: production
      TZ: [removed]

      ### Overridden variables for Docker Compose setup
      # The `nightscout` service can use HTTP, because we use `nginx` to serve the HTTPS
      # and manage TLS certificates
      INSECURE_USE_HTTP: 'true'

      # For all other settings, please refer to the Environment section of the README
      ### Required variables
      # MONGO_CONNECTION - The connection string for your Mongo database.
      # Something like mongodb://sally:[email protected]:99999/nightscout
      # The default connects to the `mongo` included in this docker-compose file.
      # If you change it, you probably also want to comment out the entire `mongo` service block
      # and `depends_on` block above.
      MONGO_CONNECTION: mongodb://mongo:27017/nightscout

      # API_SECRET - A secret passphrase that must be at least 12 characters long.
      API_SECRET: [removed]

      ### Features
      # ENABLE - Used to enable optional features, expects a space delimited list, such as: careportal rawbg iob
      # See https://github.com/nightscout/cgm-remote-monitor#plugins for details
      ENABLE: careportal rawbg iob

      # AUTH_DEFAULT_ROLES (readable) - possible values readable, denied, or any valid role name.
      # When readable, anyone can view Nightscout without a token. Setting it to denied will require
      # a token from every visit, using status-only will enable api-secret based login.
      AUTH_DEFAULT_ROLES: denied

      # For all other settings, please refer to the Environment section of the README
      # https://github.com/nightscout/cgm-remote-monitor#environment

To run it with Nginx instead of Traefik, you need to figure out what port Nightscout’s web server runs on, then expose that port, e.g.,

services:
  nightscout:
    ports:
      - 3000:3000

You can remove the labels as those are used by Traefik, as well as the Traefik service itself.

Then just point Nginx to that port (e.g., 3000) on your local machine.

—-

Traefik has to know the port, too, but it will auto detect the port that a local Docker service is running on. It looks like your config is relying on that feature as I don’t see the label that explicitly specifies the port.

I thought Hue bulbs used Zigbee?

The up arrow moves through the letters, e.g., A->B->C. The down arrow moves to the next character in the sequence, e.g., C->CA->CAA. If you click past the correct letter, you’ll have to click all the way through again. And if you submit the wrong letter, you have to start all over (after it takes twenty seconds attempting to connect with the wrong password and then alerts you that it didn’t work, of course).

Fair point, I should have asked about commercial games in general

That said I didn’t mean that the game studio itself would do the AI training and own their models in-house; if they did, I’d expect it to go just as poorly as you would. Rather, I’d expect the model to be created by an organization specialized in that sort of thing.

For example, “Marey” is one example I found of a GenAI model that its creators are saying was trained ethically.

Another is Adobe Firefly, where Adobe says they trained only on licensed and public domain content. It also sounds like Adobe is paying the artists whose content was used for AI training. I believe that Canva is doing something similar.

StabilityAI is also doing something similar with Stable Audio 2.0, where they partnered with a music licensing company, AudioSparx, to ensure that artists are compensated, AI opt outs are respected, etc…

I haven’t dug into any of those too deep, but they seem to be heading in the right direction at the surface level, at least.

One of the GenAI scenarios that’s the most terrifying to me is the idea of a company like Disney using all the material they have copyright for to train their own, proprietary GenAI image, audio, and video tools… not because I think the outputs would be bad, but because of the impact that would have on creators in that industry.

Fortunately, as long as copyright doesn’t apply to purely AI generated outputs, even if trained entirely on your own content, then I don’t think Disney specifically will do this.

I mention that as an example because that usage of AI, regardless of how ethically the model was trained, would still be unethical, in my opinion. Likewise in game creation, an ethically trained and operated model could still be used unethically to eliminate many people’s jobs in the interest solely of better profits.

I’d be on board with AI use (in game creation or otherwise) if a company were to say, “We’re not changing the budget we have for our human workforce, including for contractors, licensed art, and so on, other than increasing it as inflation and wages increase. We will be using ethical AI models to create more content than we otherwise would have been able to.” But I feel like in a corporate setting, its use is almost always going to result in them cutting jobs.

Are you okay with AAA studios using GenAI that was trained only on licensed works?

Copyright applies to unfinished works, too. There are many reasons it might not protect an unfinished work, but those reasons are still relevant even for finished works.

If someone steals your physical drawing, that’s theft. If they take a picture of it, then use the picture - or your picture + modifications - without your permission, particularly in a commercial work, then that’s copyright infringement, but not theft. If they steal your physical drawing and then take a picture and so on, then it’s both theft and copyright infringement.

Most likely this wasn’t considered copyright infringement because the allegedly copied art isn’t copyrightable, e.g., game mechanics; or the plaintiff didn’t own the copyrights themselves and thus couldn’t sue (possibly the arts were still copyrighted by the original artists, having never been purchased; possibly they were stock assets that were re-purchased by the defendant). There are any number of reasons. However, “the work wasn’t published” isn’t one of them.

On the other hand, it’s quite likely they were able to sue for theft of trade secrets for that very reason. And they might have chosen to do that simply because proving copyright infringement is much more difficult.

This happened because the developers allegedly used assets from a game called P3, which was never released, and therefore not subject to copyright infringement claims.

That isn’t how copyright works. Copyright is awarded upon creation of a work, not upon release.