EliRivers
Great. Practical nuclear fusion power, please.
I understand it can also be done with battery powered systems, which respond an order of magnitude faster than gas turbine stabilisers.
I would definitely like some way to know if they can be trusted with an LLM or if someone is going to be hard reviewing everything they submit forever. Don't know quite how to test that but asking them to use an LLM must be part of it.
Can you turn that off or do you just have to put up with the noise?
This doesn't seem to make much sense. Surely us being able to prove that something is outside their modelling ability doesn't affect whether it is or not. If I prove something true tomorrow, whatever I proved was also true today.
Or do we have a proof that everything beyond them has already been proved and there are no more proofs left to find?
In many cases it very much is the definition of socialism.
In that case, the pattern matching was against every segfault I've ever fixed, which is a lot, and traipsing through assembly, which is also a lot. Lots of experience in tracing back to source code. So did that. Matching patterns. Didn't understand the language, don't know what it's trying to do, but I know what memory access is (because I've seen the pattern "access memory" a lot in my life) and this piece of code must be matching that pattern; whatever this code is, it must be touching memory. Now scroll up and down to look for similar code in other places, that I also cannot read but I can see when things look the same; match the pattern of pieces that work with this piece that doesn't. Oh, this looks the same but it has this extra piece; part of the pattern matches, part does not. Matching patterns. What if I copy it, paste into the bad place, apply a single change to match the symbols I see in the bad place, and see what happens... fixed.
It's not something I do every day and it's not nearly as good as actually understanding it, but the problem was solved and I did not know what the code was trying to do or how to read it.
All the above aside, surely it must be possible, because we have machines that do exactly that. They're made of statistics and patterns and they're doing it. Right in front of us. There is nothing else in there and they're doing it right now.
The fact that you have a long history in the business makes me think we're either talking about wildly different things and this is a mismatch of language and context, or you're deliberately trolling me.
It can take a good few years to get to the point that one no longer has to think and understand in a concrete language. There are whole sets of common mistakes that get made across languages and tools. I've fixed errors in Pascal, which I do not read, because the person writing it was clearly thinking in C and made a mistake in their C thinking which they then translated into Pascal. Luckily for me they used common C naming and layout for that piece so I matched the whole thing up to C patterns.
Copy paste errors are easier ones to see; cases where replicated code is clearly meant to be different in a few keys places or values, and whoever did it just missed one. Array errors are common, no matter how the array notation works in language du jour. The list goes on.
All that aside, we know it's possible because there are machines doing it right now. They are made of stats and patterns. There is nothing else in there.
Sure, but the realm of fictional problems is so huge that we just can't come up with solutions to all of them. I like watching the Terminator movies (well, the first couple) as much as the next person but I can't be spending my time imagining how we could defeat skynet.
People have fixed software bugs with zero knowledge of what the code is doing and no knowledge of the programming language at hand, purely by statistical pattern matching. Solving the problem with no understanding of it beyond the idea that whatever it was, the right answer was probably something that kind of matched the kind of patterns found in things they'd seen before.
So what does it mean, "to be able to solve your problem"?
Someone applying for a tourist visa, who recently had an immigration renewal denied, who has no life to get back to in their country of origin (because they built a life in the US) but clearly has a life in the US (owns property in the US, has family in the US, has work ties -maybe even still has a job in the US); that applicant is an enhanced overstayer risk and this increases the chances of being denied a tourist visa.
Looking like a big man in your near waters, no more than a few days away from a home port, is one achievement (and it is an achievement - many nations can't do this). Sustaining a war on the other side of a serious ocean or two is a game very few countries in the world can manage right now.
The US would look extraordinarily strong to anyone bringing a war to the US.
If every living creature on earth ended tomorrow there would be no individual realities, yet actual reality would continue.
Yet people frequently don't. This assertion and reality disagree.
That you know what that is makes you the right kind of person to be delegating it to an LLM; you can be trusted to use the LLM for this sort of thing because you understand what the problem is, what the right outcome should be, and how to know when it's been done correctly.
It's the person sitting behind you who doesn't understand any of those words who is going to do something dangerous at LLM-accelerated speed I'm concerned about.