argee

"Some of the time it works every time" is all investors seem to need to see these days. Even the former might not be needed, replacing "some" with "none" given how Theranos went.

I've never seen a large business whine as much as Epic does, and they pick fights with their biggest partners all the time, too. If anything capitalism seems broken because they remain around.

Even if you do this it'll often continue with the design that got "baked in". For example, say that you said you wanted private user views, and there was already a way to have views and a way to have permissions, but opus for whatever reason went and made a user-private-views table (side note: I mean brand new table, not a view!) on top because it's not a human being with opinions and it just needles on your prompt without taking a holistic view.

Then, your LLM code reviews will never call this out. You have to look at the code yourself and correct it. If you don't, this type of monkey patch engineering will proliferate and make your codebase so awful that your successor will become a homicidial maniac.

That said, you're correct that even the code reviews often need to be triple checked before they are worth anything.

For me Opus 5.5 will frequently make several thousand LoC where 10 would suffice. One time I got fed up and told it to repro the "bugs" it was solving for with puppeteer, and lo and behold, it could not do it overnight. Hard to believe that people let this run wild on their codebase, if they do, they are making a huge untenable mess.

It really does come down to control and intent. Some people want nothing to do with either. To those people, creation is not an act of service or creativity, merely a stepping stone on their road to mediocrity.

As as society we have decided this is okay, or even where we want the majority of people to be. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

I'm not a skeptic, I'm a realist. I know how the magic trick is done. That makes it a bit less magical. As for sophistry I was talking about the LLM output itself, which has done a number on many people.

> People need to be involved because we haven't built the proper amount of robotics to create a data center from sand yet.

If you gave Mythos infinite energy and compute, it still would not autonomously create the next coherent model.

It's a good bar, or at least I don't see your counterargument. The resources to make Mythos were obviously available, but the previous gen models could not manage to build it on their own regardless. It's the bar we have set (solving increasingly complex novel problems in perpetuity), and the original bar for AGI.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-does-artific...

> I think most people are vastly underestimating just how far this technology can go

It's easy to say this when you don't define "this technology", isn't it? We can easily point to IBM Watson and say this is the same technology, or point at a transistor and say we'd be nowhere without those so we "vastly underestimated" them…

Now, if we're talking about just how far sophistry can go, there does appear to be no limit, and apparently we can scale it.

The goalposts have never shifted if you didn't shift your definition for the oligarchs and kept it stable.

If Opus could autonomously create Fable, and Fable made Mythos, and so on, it would be AGI. The fact that people need to be involved, means it isn't.

I think your cool only applies when you get quite granular. OTOH, everyone knows "teenager slang" is cool and "working in tech" is (now) cool, or "being a brain surgeon" is cool. So as I said in my original comment, those are two different "cool"s entirely.

Besides, some things are done for reasons other than economic efficiency. It would be more efficient for people to relinquish their apartments to some company that will ensure near 100% occupancy while you aren't home. Yet you would be hard pressed to find a single human being who would rather share their space like this than own and manage their own condo (apart from those who get scammed by timeshares).

Humans simply don't work like that.

I would like to know how “efficient” Altman's $27 million mansion is.

It used to be cool for nerds. When it became cool for normies is when these people joined in. The latter is what society actually considers cool.

> If you are considering a role in some part of Google (either as a new hire or an internal transfer), you should ask probing questions about the organization itself to try and understand its specific culture and how that culture is embraced by the people inside it.

A bit easier said than done, when there's a bad director no one is going to tell you in the interview. On the other hand they are unlikely to praise them either, so you can pay attention to the omission if your questions are specific enough.

Sam Altman should've said only one person companies can reach a billion dollars in the future, as everyone else is too busy feeding each other awful LLM outputs.

They're just going to rationalize answers to this. You already know the real answer. FOMO, and fear of the Red Queen effect.

Can't you just look at memory bandwidth for generation?

Thanks for the reply. It would be great if you could introduce yourself somewhere in this comment section or in your HN profile, I cannot tell whether you intend to speak on Karthik's behalf.

If there was value to be had there, you would. It's an indictment of the cited value, if you wouldn't. So are you asking me to argue my own point again? I don't think your position is adversarial to mine?

If you are arguing effort versus value, let me escalate: I don't think even the call leader of an Amazon sev one would be interested in seeing such screen recordings, when all of Amazon.com is down, and when workable solutions would be worth putting Herculean effort behind.

I want to know where the value comes from, then, just because it got easier to query such data doesn't in itself make it valuable. You would be better served by having Opus look over your code after Sonnet made mistakes, rather than having Opus first digest whatever (potentially poisonous slop) Sonnet cooked up before looking at the code.

Would there have been value, pre-LLMs, in attaching a screen recording of what a developer did in the three hours before posting their diff (be it Google, stack overflow, reading a book, or trying a sandbox experiment) to their PR? The PR is a synthesis of their efforts, and it would actually be more effort to review and understand their screen recordings, wouldn't it? In my experience striving for fewer artifacts is the right move, so long as they are sufficient to describe the outcome. What exactly is lost between sessions and code that would help you debug something?

Also, if your business has agents writing most of the code, why would your business care about human reviews at all? In for a penny, in for a pound, after all. Wouldn't you be better off looping your agents into your support tickets and autofixing bugs? In that scenario, isn't it more confusing for an agent to deal with sessions + code rather than start fresh with the code?

Maybe your username could have been paulrichguy and things would've been different.

Are you conflating regulation and accountability? I haven't seen anyone (without a vested interest) ask for the former as a response to an adverse event, only the latter. There is a difference.

Not producing output at a speed you can't legitimately keep up with.

This reminds me the old story about the man who goes to the doctor complaining of pain in his eye when he drinks his tea/coffee, and the doctor advises the man to take the spoon out of the mug.

Except here, instead of taking the spoon out, the man just decides to take his eye out.

I suppose that does at least permanently solve the "problem" in one fell sweep.

This is just a form of "if you're so smart, why aren't you rich?", isn't it?

It's best to have a light hearted attitude about these things (that's why I added a joke). The vast majority of people don't even know their pronunciation might be different from others', ignorance is very human. It isn't malice, though, and even if people did make an effort they would be the odd one out.

One interesting example of a blanket change is the N-word. As expected, it wasn't a grassroots movement but a mass publicized event and collective experience that made it happen.

If people's ignorance makes you angry you're in for a miserable and likely hypocritical life.

That's the joke!

> In the Karakoram (pronounced keh·ruh·kaw·ruhm) Range—a mountainous region straddling the borders of Pakistan, India, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, and China…

Non-sequitur but no one pronounces it like that in those regions.

On another note katsu (pronounced cat-sue) is a dish you should try in Japan.

That's a funny example, given that the Wright brothers were overwhelmingly empirical compared to their competitors and succeeded as a result, because the foundation of aerodynamics was fundamentally flawed at the time. In a real sense, those systems were built from empirical observations, and most human systematizing happens post-hoc.

I agree that formalizing observations into a system can lead to additional insights, though it would probably be hubris to assume the formalization is faultless.

It doesn't sound great to me. That would be a bit like if I asked my contractor to read a 500 page tome instead when he wanted to come look at the studs in the walls, because the original architect made an incomprehensible mess of it.

I wouldn't put it exactly like this, but I agree that many systems chugging along today (such as the COBOL running on IBM metal that powers banks) are not something people try to (or can) comprehend all at once.

Is that really a problem though? We can solve problems empirically even if we don't keep the entire system's workings in our heads.

Wow, what an insightful comment, paired with a downvote. I am in awe.

Nevermind that the calculation of their retirement number was what I was suggesting in the first place.

It's amazing to me that even HN is full of this kind of petty jealousy, where people are ostensibly amiable to founding their own businesses and owning their time. God forbid someone retire. I expect to get downvoted on Reddit for even daring to mention I can afford bread, but I didn't expect that kind of thing here.

Maybe you should choose a different sin, you know Envy is the only one you can't have any fun at, right?