glitchc
glitchc on Hacker News
In its current state, LLMs produce code that is on par with the average developer. This is not necessarily bad since most firms can only afford to hire average developers, the difference in quality is negligible. And on the flip side, by producing the code it does, AI also raises the floor by eliminating code smells typical of below-average developers, so there's that.
I suggest reading some philosophy. It seems that we have spent a great deal of energy training people for a vocation, but in the process forgot to educate them.
Let me answer your question with a question: Does the infrared camera detect emitted heat?
It's the EV folks that are spouting nonsense due to lack of experience. TCO is more than just oil changes.
The parts that wear out the fastest are designed to be easily replaceable. Just in a different league sounds like hogwash. I've seen the costs associated with Teslas caught in a collision. What would be a quick panel replacement on a typical ICE suddenly costs 15K plus.
Let's keep in mind that many hedge, pension and retirement funds have investments in these big companies. In short, the potential losses are already socialized.
That's absolute nonsense. So what if it's an EV? It still requires replacement door hinges, fenders, panels, suspension parts, wiring harnesses, software updates, etc. Repairing a car is a great deal more complex than simply changing oil or replacing brake pads. All mechanical objects experience wear and tear and require maintenance.
This is it exactly. Search is steady while GC is growing by leaps and bounds because all AI iniatives require cloud for hardware and GC is a good option for anyone unhappy with AWS or Azure. The graph makes it clear.
It just puts us in the same boat as buggy whip manufacturers and saddlemakers. At least now we know how they truly felt. The rest of society needs to care as much as you cared about saddlemakers before AI. See how that works?
> I'm still not fond of the bicycle manufacturer announcing its achievements in bicycle racing, even if it selects the 5 top cyclists to support the orchestration of the announcement.
Whoo boy, I guess F1 is not for you then.
The public would rather be safe than be free. We see that time and time again with how people are tough on crime, how they want government to step in if they are ever defrauded or stolen from. Politicians are simply mirroring the people's wishes.
This is a good start, albeit I don't share the author's enthusiasm for eliminating letters that are used in sounding out the word. I would rather we focus on popular words and remove any ambiguity in how someone would speak them if they read it for the first time. I think it is essential for the future of English that people communicating online (using text) can avoid the ambiguity in how the receiver would read and speak their message. For that reason, truncating smaller words to use fewer letters while retaining how they sound is far more valuable.
As an example, bothering with miscellany is a waste of time. Almost no one uses it when writing a tweet or a text message. It's a bigger bang for buck to change words like through to thru or knife to nyfe and so on.
It's not the lawyers but the KPAs. If a prosecutor's promotion is judged based on the number of successful prosecutions, then there's every incentive to prosecute and zero incentive to dismiss charges.
Fixing the system requires changing the incentives. Individuals would adjust accordingly.
Edit: It won't get fixed because ultimately the metrics trickle up to Joe Public, who is notoriously tough on crime. Lawyers had to fight popular sentiment to get rid of the death penalty in most states. Even today, between death and life imprisonment, the former is preferred by the general public.
That may be just as likely as having a high net worth individual donate their entire fortune to you gratis.
As in, just as unlikely.
Sadly no one wants the truth, so folks like Jobs and Cuban have to layer it with bromides. Truth is they're both giving the exact same advice, it's just that the honest version is deeply unpopular, because it implies that there is no secret sauce.
The advice is: Work very hard on something, and you too might get lucky.
Jobs' version is just slightly modified: Work very hard on something (you care about), and you too might get lucky.
Of course it is. It's a brand new technology with a great deal of potential and some caveats. Something like this has not existed in the history of humanity to date. It's truly mind boggling that a large chunk of humanity's corpus can be compressed to just a trillion bytes, then queried and recombined at whim. Heck, a flying car is less revolutionary.
What exactly would you be advocating for? That LLMs can't be used to generate mathematical proofs? It's not even a case of intellectual theft, academic papers are in the public domain or can be accessed through a subscription.
This is hyperbole at best. Let's try another take: Should a new company making flying cars care about the economic fortunes of tire manufacturers?
This is not OpenAI's problem.
Down is much harder than up. Loved the ending.
You're completely wrong. There's nothing ballistic about laminar flow.
Unfortunately, I think this is a human failing being exposed rather than anything else. We like to build conceptual models of how things work, but they are often tinged with
should. Reality doesn't care how things should work. It only cares about how things
do work. It's always jarring when the
should turns out to be false.
Philosophers for millenia believed that human beings had meaning, purpose and set out to explore what that could be. It was a noble profession for a long time. Once we realized that there was no hidden spark, ergo no purpose, the study of and the prestige associated with philosophy took a nosedive. Yes it is still studied but it carries nowhere near the respect it once did. Mathematics seems to be suffering the same fate.
An appreciating asset is an investment by definition. Land has been an appreciating asset over the long term for the history of humanity.
Yeah sure, except that benefits the consumer. Amazon offers three things that are incredibly convenient for the consumer:
(1) Same day or next day shipping
(2) No hassle returns for a full refund
(3) No cost for return shipping. In some cases, the shipper will come to my door (!) to pick up the return package at no cost.
What was it like before Amazon? An internet filled with every possible storefront someone threw together with a CGI script, sketchy payment processes and dark patterns that hide information or trick you into extras. Getting something actually delivered was a crapshoot at best unless one went with a known vendor (ex. Best Buy).
What's the next credible alternative for merchants without Amazon? There's Shopify. I hold my breath every time I order from a website using Shop Pay. There's no clarity on when it will ship, sometimes details are excellent, other times the merchant forgets to add a tracking number. Return policies are merchant specific (read: very inconsistent), and Shopify takes zero liability if a package goes missing. They leave it up to me to sort it out with the merchant, as a result, ordering anything above $100 feels risky.
Access to battery terminals enables power side-channel attacks such as DPA and CPA.
Hongdian's primary retail front in the west is through Amazon.