FartyMcFarter

> where does the pattern matching stop and strategy starts or it's one and the same?

It's not one and the same, but strategy patterns are definitely a thing too.

There are:

- tactical patterns (e.g. "back rank checkmate", "pair of pieces that can be forked by a pawn");

- strategy patterns (e.g. "in a same-colour bishop endgame, put your pawns on the colour opposite to the bishops").

There's also calculation ability which also partly relies on patterns one has seen before.

No, I watch plenty of "regular" GMs, as well as some IMs and even FMs who all consider way more moves/positions than I do.

> the average chess grandmaster during a classical game will analyze roughly the same number of moves as an amateur player, but they analyze only the most critical moves and do a better job with that analysis.

I don't buy this. I've seen GMs playing online while verbalizing their thought process (on twitch / youtube videos where they livestream their play), and they consider way more branches than I do, while also going deeper than I ever would on some branches. My top rating in lichess blitz is about 1900, not bad but way lower than a GM.

> I haven't wrapped my head around 5 and 6

This sentence doesn't align very well with your other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50350548

Even if the request gets rejected, it wouldn't sound completely off to anyone if you tried to negotiate more salary for less shares.

I think almost all companies would laugh at you if you tried to reduce the number of tokens you can use for more salary. The tokens are stuff you can use to be productive at work, I expect that companies that take tokens seriously enough to mention them before you start wouldn't like that at all.

> There's a lot to unpack about this statement.

Including the fact that it's probably not true.

If something is compensation, it can often be negotiated and traded off against other compensation components. How many people have successfully negotiated AI tokens away in favour of salary/bonus/stock? I'm going to guess "approximately zero".

They definitely write off by one errors. One of the first serious work tasks I used AI for a few months ago immediately had an off by one error.

What they are really good at is writing boilerplate and reading API documentation / example code. Avoiding subtle errors is not what they're good at in my experience.

GCP has grown a lot.

"You are a distinguished engineer..."

> It's about knowing what your team is up to so you can provide them the resources necessary while also working to remove any obstacles in their way so they can get shit done.

That makes sense - I don't know if that's what the blog post was implying though. Ironically, this blog post could probably benefit from a few more details about what the meeting was supposed to achieve :)

> If I have a handle on things from bottom-up to top-down, I don't need them to rehash weed-level technical and specific details.

I should have been clearer.

When I said that good leaders pay attention to things from the bottom-up, that doesn't mean they always know everything needed for any discussion. It just means they are able and keen to understand the low-level details when they matter, because they routinely look at such details in the projects that they're involved in.

Of course it's possible that this story is just told badly and the SVP already knew the technical details, in which case the blog post is a bit misleading.

> I need them to tell me what we're going to change, and it needs to be a BIG systemic change, not minutiae, which is where many engineers thrive.

How can one know if the engineers' proposed "BIG systemic change" is appropriate and complete, without knowing the details of the problem it is addressing?

> Then I realised that "I don't want the details" wasn't being dismissive. The executive assumed that we were competent, and was saying "I already believe you. Now let's talk about what happens next".

Something about this feels wrong:

- If you trust them completely, you don't need to know what happens next either. Just trust them to do the right things, your leadership isn't required.

- If you don't trust them completely, how can you know if "what happens next" is appropriate without knowing the details?

Isn't this just reinforcing the idea that leadership doesn't need to have their feet on the ground?

The best leaders I've worked with were paying attention to things from the bottom-up as well as top-down.

Yep - I immediately thought this was going to be some "Python SWE on the cloud for hire" service.

That will show'em.

If that's the case, that makes me much less sympathetic, even though I can understand how it's very disturbing to see the field suddenly changing like this.

> I also see the issue on Lichess’s GUI by going to this URL:

> https://lichess.org/lwiPq9wB#48

When I go to that link it shows Black is winning with -1.9 eval at depth 32 with SF19 1MB NNUE! It looks like it got this evaluation from the cloud database.

I think there are some valuable lessons that chess can teach, if you approach it the right way:

- it teaches resiliency in bad situations.

- it teaches you to not be too harsh on yourself as a person. If you watch GMs playing online, they make bad mistakes all the time too - they're not godlike creatures who make no mistakes, far from it.

The flipside is that if you approach it the wrong way (I know I have at many points), it can have the opposite effects too.

To approach chess in a mentally healthy way was a long process for me. You need to get rid of your ego and be objective as much as possible when playing, or it will just make you sour - this in itself is a valuable lesson.

Probably not faster if I have to guess. The nuances of why 19 is better than 18 are likely indistinguishable from noise when they play against someone at a much lower level (i.e. any human).

Surely input tokens are also involved, and not necessarily only for the initial prompt if there are feedback loops or agent interactions.

Stack overflows are also trivial to check for, if one wants to. It's just comparing two pointers, plus checking for arithmetic overflow (in case the pointers run past the maximum value of the pointer type).

> What these comments all miss is that ensuring your 13 million lines actually encode what you intend them to encode

I don't think the comments are missing that at all. If the Lean compiler itself is bug-free, we can trust its verification of the 13 million lines of code. We don't need to verify them by hand.

The encoding of the theorem itself needs to be trusted, as does the compiler. The proof doesn't need to be trusted, it gets checked by the compiler.

5 minutes later, the AI concludes the best strategy is to start a universe simulation and let Fermat write the proof in a margin. Recurse.

The trouble is that in chess, if one player deviates significantly that can often still mean they have a playable (perhaps slightly worse) position which has to either be memorised or understood on the spot, which can be really difficult. The main line is not the only playable line.

Is this also the case for Go's joseki? Or is any deviation easy to punish?

Maybe only in some regions?

That's a good point, but sometimes it's a good thing for people to see the consequences of their (and others') choices. Perhaps it could have some good medium / long-term effects.

Then we'd have to hear the Brexiteers whining on and on about democracy.

This way we get to see their project fail.

I don't know which one is worse.

> (No, there won’t be jokes.)

I must be missing something here, inside joke or something in the title?

I don't necessarily disagree, but I am wondering what luxury will next become a necessity if we keep increasing our energy usage in order to get both more luxuries and necessities?

On the bright side, I suppose one mitigating factor is that renewable energy makes it less harmful to use energy to power A/C usage.

Good. Tipping creates so much mental overhead and unnecessary bad feelings on everyone's part.

The Google search bar is not capable of generating original text though. LLMs definitely are - you can get pretty creative output easily.