atomicnature

"Stackoverflow for agents" still not there?

Micro payments should be integrated into our browsers and agents; we can just conveniently pay up for what we want to read, rather than subscribing for a whole bunch of stuff we have no interest in.

The underlying assumption here is -- at least part of code is AI generated.

Also another unstated assumption is that both the "author" and "reviewer" are reading AI-generated stuff, at least partly

First of all -- the author should not be surprised by any of the things the AI is reporting. If the author is -- either the reviewer AI went wrong, or the generative component went wrong. Either way -- there is something worth looking at in greater depth.

For the reviewer -- or "traditional reviewer" as we may term them -- they are dealing with much greater volume per day now, again due to AI generation. This is supposed to help them get through things faster while not losing comprehension altogether.

There's a reason we still have the code diff right below -- they are encouraged to check things themselves if they feel "something is off" with the quiz.

The point is -- a few questions hopefully gets the wheels spinning in the reader rather than looking at the diff passively and saying "LGTM"

And yes -- all the review results are grounded strictly in the diff

Not necessarily.

Higher-level design often involves dissolving apparent tensions or opposites through layering or more sophisticated mechanisms, while preserving the benefits of both.

Example ->

Proposition: "Phew, we have to choose between convenience and security."

Naive design: "Let's find a watered-down compromise."

Good design: "Let's layer security on top of convenience by designing the system so users don't have to choose, or water either one down."

Great companies have a history of dissolving apparent contradictions under a single roof via good design.

Why is it bad? 90% thought is not productive or low value (distractions, routine work, etc, etc). You may think something else, something more useful, and with the full power of "thoughtware" backing you.

It's his website -- official I think.

Just a question to people who may know better than me about this.

I thought the whole point of trying to write out TLA+ is so that you get a better idea of what you want and put it into formal language?

I get that an LLM can assist/help with expressing what we want in formal language a bit, but if one automates all this there is no human intent/design anymore.

If the LLM generates both the design (TLA+) and writes an arbitrary program that satisfies said design -- what exactly have we proved?

What assurance do humans get since human doesn't know or cannot specify what they want.

What's the difference as you see it?