customguy
They didn't read code before, they just wrote it? That makes no sense.
And that whole "legacy humanslop" paragraph is just stating the obvious with an air of spite towards humans.
People who can't bother to reason get angry when you say "hey, why put all eggs into one basket", episode N. Boring.
How is that not taking things out of context (or rather, leaving them stripped of it)? Scarcity caused by what? For the benefit of who? Utilization for what purpose? "Serving people", heh.
I wouldn't want RAM or a GPU for a decent price to run local models, but to do normal computer stuff. That is what is scarce, RAM and GPU for people. Nobody would give a flying fuck if ONLY data centers had trouble acquiring RAM.
If someone fuckers buys up all the drinking water to make enemas 24/7, and people survive on the rain water they catch in bowls, and then those guys says actually, we should have those too, they're just greedy sociopaths, no need to complicate it.
What? Only websites that want to track you before opting in have cookie banners. HN doesn't have a cookie banner, in case you haven't noticed. I'd say your issue isn't with consumer protection, but with pushy marketing people (or worse). But they're good at marketing, hence the cookie banner nonsense complaints, which redirect the anger towards laws requiring that creeps announce their presence, rather than the creeps themselves.
Wouldn't a true 1337 hax0r apply some critical analytic thought to why that is?
It's the same reaction: being protective of sentient beings who are being dehumanized and treated as raw resources. If you can't even defend humans, being one, you wouldn't be able to defend sentient AI, should it ever exist.
https://www.theregister.com/offbeat/2022/11/14/twitter-engin...
If you simply go by what he is saying, then you should also simply go by what anyone else is saying during the time Musk isn't talking. When he says he's Jesus, he's Jesus until someone else says he's not. That's as much as you can be trusted with.
But if they sent you the code, even if a third party actor could somehow see it and hand it to you instead -- so what? What's the difference?
But the direction is reversed.
I figure out how to do something, wrap it in a bunch of functions, and then kinda just use it. If it just keeps doing what it should, I may kinda forget how it works. But I don't forget that I made it, and that I understood it, that will never not have happened. So in a way, I am able to "forget" some things because I still know I knew them. And I trust that programmers who write programs that I dream about writing also know what they're doing.
With LLM, you accumulate stuff with from knows where, ultimately fished from a vast ocean named question mark, by whatever turns of phrase you and involved agents happened to use, and what the temperature was at that moment. Which is of course where all the harnessing and looping and running code on the output comes in, but still, ultimately you have no idea. Which is fine for prototypes, but long term? Good luck.
Why? I keep asking for examples of LLM being used to make code more simple and elegant (which I would say is adjacent to making software better, if not more secure), and never get a reply, not a single one. I'm not claiming it doesn't exist, I know it must exist. If only via a lots of careful massaging of system prompts and harnesses, even if it takes too much effort to be worth it, I would like to see it.
Of course people can't share internal examples, but this is all over the world for many months now, where are the open source examples? Not "something new someone couldn't have done before", but someone making their precious even neater (while also adding things to it, but not primarily). Put differently, can LLM delete code, can they curate it well, can they not write weird comments nobody wants or needs, that sound like echoes of the user prompts and responses to them, but just explain tricky parts of the code, like a human would?
Also, IMO a VERY useful thing to learn about a tool or a chemical or whatever is, "what happens if I keep applying it to the same small thing over and over?" -- because that's the level of scientist I never evolved past, the kind of stuff you do as a kid -- , whereas a lot of this seems to be more about how it feels to apply it here and there until it looks good, and then move on and never look back. Which really isn't much at all, especially given we're such a short time in. I mean, how useful were mugs made of lead? Are people aware of the (in hindsight) insane things that were done with x-rays as those were invented, before the potential for harm was known? I bet they had a great time playing with that stuff, for a while.
What if in 5 years it turns out that a few years ago, LLM got into this habit of implementing certain things in a certain way because it seemed the best to "them" (the training, whatever), but there's a security issue with that -- what do you do? You can only let more agents loose, and hope they don't miss anything, because you cannot even do something like "patch PHP" (which is not my thought, Casey Muratori mentioned that in on of those podcast things).
Fully leaning into LLM doing as much of the coding and understanding as can be handed off to them seems insane to me, I don't mean this to offend though. It just does, like suggesting we go to Mars, because everything is better there, and to do that, we have to blow up Earth. Or saying to magically be able to fly from now on, we need to saw off the branch we're sitting on. Even if I thought life on Mars was the future or that we could fly, if we just thought of it the right way, this isn't a way forward IMO.
LLM are great at creating code, obviously, but what is your (or anyone's) experience with them making code "better" in that way? Finding patterns in messy things and making it more "tidy", renaming things to be less verbose yet still descriptive, or even more descriptive, that sort of thing? Where you can "apply" agents to a codebase and have it come out more accessible to LLM and humans, because it's better code and less of it, if you will. I know rewriting things is more enticing and often more practically useful, but are there efforts/experiment in that direction? With actual code I can look at, comparing before and after?
> I don't know the scale Denmark
What does that refer to? Both say "1:1 scale". Are you just trying to pad the list so you can "details" instead of "detail"?
"Terrain, glaciers, lakes, forests and dams come from swisstopo’s open geodata"
Without the context of what this even is, that the description does not provide, that might as well be someone who is bad at English trying to say something like"swisstopo’s offers open geodata about terrains, glaciers, lakes, forests and dams of Switzerland". Except if they struggled with the language they wouldn't needlessly bloat that list, either.
They didn't read it, the people rushing to its defense apparently aren't parsing it either, but I'm sure they make sure payment processing works, so at least there's that.
Something is driving people into bubbles so they only talk about the other, never with. And both agree that "centrists", "normies", etc. are the most despicable of all. Seems like a recipe for something.
But that's the whole argument. It's silly because many are used to it, it's too extreme a change for people who are used to it.
If the majority of people somewhere did indeed use "Password123" everywhere and had been for decades, they'd find excuses too, one of them that it's not so bad as "Password". They might have a whole process around dealing with while not seeing the fallout.
> the investment and energy requirement of creating completely TV-free spaces for children.
Huh? You simply don't turn on the TV when the kid is there. If you want to save even more money and energy, don't get a TV.
> It's not self-evident that pointing out hypocrisy isn't a valid refutation
If I say drinking tons of sugary soda every day is bad for you, when I drink nothing but myself, how would my hypocrisy have a bearing on the effects of drinking soda? Yes, it's self-evident. It shouldn't even need saying because nobody should be so dishonest to even attempt it as an argument. It's the kind of dumb shit people say about other people, never to them.
Most people use password123 as password, and like using the same password on every site, so saying that's bad is a bit silly?
What kind of logic is that?
> benefits of that are not clear other than expressing the parents' own maniacal anxiety which (in of itself)
The coupling of the benefits being supposedly "not clear" while "maniacal anxiety" being absolutely certain is just classic.
seriously though: nothing will stop the sky from being blue, anytime soon. How I know this? Because we don't constantly talk about how the sky will always be blue. If you got the goods, you don't need the sales pitch.
> Google is still anal about dark mode if you're not signed in. YouTube still hinders iOS's picture-in-picture feature. Facebook still doesn't have iPad-native versions of their apps. There's so much shit in apps with billions of users that hasn't been fixed for years.
They're not selling apps, alternative apps do nothing to them. Sure they hate it, just like Twitter hates xcancel, but they could give them amnesty and servers instead and still would never be meaningfully harmed by a mere viewing tool of their data.
> Authoritarianism.
Capitalizing it randomly doesn't make that less projection. You think just because n% support a party that wants to abolish democracy for whatever reason, that party MuST be allowed. And if enough people support Trump being above the law, he should be. And if enough people get sick, they're suddenly healthy. That's not how anything works, not even remotely.