blainehansen

All school work that's actually important, and especially that's trying to evaluate understanding, must be done in environments where LLM use is structurally impossible.

Original author here. Metaphors become real, and they shape the way people think. I think it's dangerous to compare LLMs to deterministic systems because it misleads people into treating this situation we're in like other kinds of automation, which it absolutely isn't.

Also, if you want me to believe that LLMs have made you that much more productive, please share some links for useful things you've built recently using them. I'm thrilled if actual things can be made, but I haven't seen it yet.

Original author here. Yes, if I had the capability of writing a computer program or a formal proof that could stand in for this essay full of opinions and metaphors and heuristics, I would have.

> It's fully general, but it's also furiously ambiguous. Humans fall back to natural language when no other more precise way to describe what we want is available to us, either because it doesn't exist or we don't know it comfortably. We draw diagrams and blueprints and write math equations for a reason!

Original author here. I think words like "intentionally designed to be completely predictable" signal my understanding that this is only an intent rather than a perfect reality. I was trusting my audience to understand that obvious nuance.

Hey original author here. Natural language is always easy and available as an interface, but it's extremely low fidelity. It's not easy to come up with better interfaces for tasks, but when we do they tend to be much better (as in more clear, faster, higher quality, etc).

Hey, original author here.

> But fundamentally any metaphor will be inadequate, LLMs are too weird. It doesn't make sense to compare a transformer-based deep neural network that autoregressively generates language tokens based on their embedding in a high-dimensional semantic space to really anything that's ever existed.

You might not have read the full post ha

We could have genuinely open and sustainable open source, but we need to slightly tweak our social expectations.

The solution to broken social media is obvious: democratic cooperative ownership

Hi, maintainer/author of Magmide here: https://github.com/magmide/magmide#gradually-verifiable https://github.com/magmide/magmide#fully-reusable https://github.com/magmide/magmide#isnt-formal-verification-...

Hi, maintainer/author of Magmide here: https://github.com/magmide/magmide#is-logically-verifying-co...

Hi, maintainer/author of Magmide here: https://github.com/magmide/magmide#is-it-actually-useful-to-...

Hi, maintainer/author of Magmide here: https://github.com/magmide/magmide#isnt-most-software-too-fu...

Hi, maintainer/author of Magmide here: https://github.com/magmide/magmide#isnt-is-undecidable-to-pr...

By avoiding effect aware functions a language hobbles engineers and makes programs sloppier than they could be.