gspr
I do say that, too. But I'm not in the film industry. My understanding is that those who are, don't use words as crude as "made" to describe a role in the making of a film. I believe they say that he wrote, directed or produced a film.
We are not talking about some other field of expertise here, where we are outsiders – the production of food, the supply of water, or the making of movies – we're talking about our own field of expertise.
Is the article claiming that?
> Not knowing all the details seems more like the default human condition, in the sense that most people don't know exactly where their water comes from or where their waste goes exactly. "Water comes from the tap, food comes from the store".
Sure. The ability to specialize, and on the flip-side not have to care about a lot of things, remains one of the biggest driving forces of human civilization. But in this article, I don't think the person worried about cognitive surrender is the "most people" in relation to food or water. They're the farmer or the water infrastructure engineer!
> Most of the non-technical people I see using LLMs to create software are not engaging in "cognitive surrender" as far as I can tell.
Maybe not. But the might be cognitively surrendering when they use the LLM to summarize the day's news or write a message to a friend, or even plan dinner for the week. I'd say they are. I agree that it's not clear-cut.
> They're evaluating what they can see, i.e, judging results. They build things for their own use. They test them, iterate on them to meet their needs and try to achieve their vision.
No. They have things built, then they test them. This is different. It might be OK, but it's not the same as building.
> This is roughly the same process they followed when they used to outsource to an agency except the loop is much tighter.
Yes. But they wouldn't usually outsource summarizing a letter from grandma, or the political agenda of a candidate/party in an upcoming election. That's surrender.
> It seems to work well, mainly hurts when the problems are invisible, so security, backups, breaking migrations, perf, maintenance over time (language / runtime updates, dep updates, lib updates, server updates etc).
… or ones own abilities deteriorate.
> Tooling and processes that make that stuff more visible would close a lot of the gaps.
Not the problem of one's own skills though.
This is good advice. But I'd consider it the absolute baseline. I'd be much more interested in hearing about TVs that'll still try to get to the internet (neighbor's badly secured IoT network, bluetooth, 5G) or ones that cripple themselves when you tamper with wifi.
I'm sure it won't be long before these bastards embed a cell phone modem deeply into the device :(
Sure, MAGA would've been a large congressional embarrassment in a proportional system. But they wouldn't run the show.
You shouldn't. Nor should you conclude anything general about the EU from something French politicans do. It's disingenuous.
You're essentially saying that swallowing a pill is trivial, so therefore pharmaceutical engineering is.
What is this bullshit assumption that keeps coming up? I'm sure some people get an education for the job prospects, but lots and lots and lots do to grow their minds as human persons! In fact, I think a hypothetical world in which there is no earnings pressure (I doubt it's around the corner), more people would broaden their horizons through education, not less!
Can someone help me understand this idea, so popular on HN, that a university education is primarily a mean towards a higher income? It sounds so absurd! Is it an American thing, maybe?
The way I remember it is that the questions that would be closed were either copy-pastes of homework tasks, vague descriptions of some overarching goal ("how do I implement this?"), walls of code ("why does this crash?"), or obvious duplicates.
Wouldn't acceptance of those things make the site pretty much unusable?
I don't understand this at all. In its heyday, I found it working really well. The questions that would be closed were either copy-pastes of homework tasks, vague descriptions of some overarching goal ("how do I implement this?"), walls of code ("why does this crash?"), or obvious duplicates.
I think it's good that the site got rid of those quickly. Sure there'd be some snarky high-rep users around, but they'd mostly listen to facts or at least be drowned out by more useful contributions.
I even added a warmup phase where they were given the answer to a decode and a few steps of running, and ask them to abort if they disagreed. Didn't help.
All in all, for someone who doesn't use LLMs much, this was a far more exhausting and boring exercise than I'd imagine it to be. The only thing that sparked some joy was the models' persistent cheating, whereby they'd try to analyze the whole program upfront and only give the final output (when applicable), despite orders to faithfully step through each and every instruction.
There's indeed lots of good advice in this thread. I appreciate it all! "Just use an LLM for the stuff you don't understand" is, however, not one of them.
I'd rather leave it unconfigured than have a massive configuration I don't understand.
I code in Emacs almost every day. I read and write e-mail in Emacs almost every day. I take notes in Emacs almost every day. I maninpulate data in Emacs almost every day. Yet I don't know LISP (any LISP!) at all, I barely use any packages beyond "whatever it is that Debian ships by default", and I'm quite bad at fancy Emacs shortcuts. My Emacs config file is a hodge-podge of little snippets I don't properly understand – and it measures in at just about 100 lines, including comments and whitespace, with a significant part of that being just mundane configuration data for the mu4e Emacs client!
This has been the case for about 15 years now. And I'm the kind of person who really likes to know my tools. It's such a ridiculous situation! I somehow never get properly around to sitting down and learning, and I really struggle to make LISP click.
Sigh. I hope I'm not alone. I really really really should learn this thing!
Anyway, the most important part is: Despite all of this, Emacs is still fantastic for me! Here's to the next 50!
This is gonna get so much worse. It's like the smartphone revolution on steroids – and we've seemingly learned nothing! We're in dire straits.
This is what I fear will push its way into every part of society soon, too.
"We're not forcing you to do your banking through our AI interface instead of a normal one, you're free to opt out, but multiple functions will be missing and we'll charge you a monthly fee."
"You don't have to have an LLM grade your exam, but beware that the human grader will be overworked and grumpy for the extra task."
It seems a lot of the bunkerbros don't realize this value of society. They don't need society any more, they think.
Emphasis being survive. Maybe. These morons seem to think this will be a continuation of their current lives. That somehow people will continue to serve them if society has collapsed. They're delusional.
> There are other competing sociopaths, and also 8B of population who don't care about saving world much.
Oh please! The billionaires think that they're so special, they owe their fortune to their inherent genius. But when it comes to helping the world it's apparently "but but the other 8B aren't doing it, I'm just a regular guy who can't accomplish anything!"
Losers.
Lastly, their "solution" to the crapfest, I fear, will be society footing the bill for "more AI" to "fix it". 95% of people will just accept that software has to be shit, and we'll all pay for it, while quality will be shown the door for being more expensive.
This is like watching the cryptobros all over again, except a thousand times bigger.
(Before they droll on: no, of course this take doesn't mean that LLMs are unimpressive and never useful. Only people in a cult take any criticism to mean that.)