ken47

This wouldn't be a problem so long as they properly attribute.

Thanks for creating and sharing this.

Isn’t this related?

Hundreds of UC faculty call to reinstate SAT, ACT requirements for STEM applicants: https://dailybruin.com/2026/05/27/hundreds-of-uc-faculty-cal...

> However, this was not verified in Lean.

This is the caliber of thinking in unimpaired AI bullishness.

Because the majority of executives think AI is a magical black box, I’d reckon.

I have to wonder if there is a relation to the rising prevalence of coding LLMs.

Coincidence is God’s way of remaining anonymous.

And don't forget that physical loneliness, that is, actually being alone, eliminates one major feedback source that something could be wrong with your health, or a source of immediate aid if e.g. you go into cardiac arrest.

Maybe the researcher above touches on these things, but more generally, there should be a standardized probability and statistics exam for ALL aspiring scientific researchers, and a high score should be the minimum cutoff. The influence that a statistically flawed study can have over our collective futures is too dangerous.

The main premise of this article is that SPA frameworks are primarily about transitions. This is yet another passionate argument built on a false foundation.

The overarching problem is that signal:noise ratio in contemporary discussions of AI is absurdly low. This is thanks in large part to a media complex whose primary goal seems to be the pumping of AI investments and stocks, and the associated cacophony of mendacious exaggerations. If only we could have a reasonable discussion without the "contributions" of the non-technical and/or salespeople...

Occam’s Razor applies.

Those wealthy enough to invest or speculate in real estate incur a write-down they can likely afford - as Warren Buffett once said, don’t swim naked. The person of average or below-average means gets a chance at a standard life.

We don't need AGI in order for AI to destroy humanity.

> rise of IDEs, or Google search, or AWS.

None of these things introduced the risk of directly breaking your codebase without very close oversight. If LLMs can surpass that hurdle, then we’ll all be having a different conversation.

Longer.

You can pre-agree on a solution path with human engineers too, with a similar effect.

Search engineering forums online. If you haven’t found the walls, you haven’t been trying.

Let’s not conflate LLM’s with AI. LLM’s are a kind of AI that can be a software engineer’s assistant, at best. But the degree of hype is undermining belief in AI among many professionals who the hypesters claim are going to be replaced. No, this iteration is not going to replace doctors or engineers. But the degree to which the hype train wants to do so is alarming.

That’s weird. Why is the data from the unconnected databases of test companies in a single place?

As expected, shallow analysis from people who don’t understand our craft and/or are all too happy to feed a hype train.

Human experts set the benchmarks and LLM’s cannot match them in most (maybe any?) fields requiring sophisticated judgment.

They are very useful for some things, but sophisticated judgment is not one of them.

[flagged]

Not really possible when success in South Korea is literally like the Squid Games and entrance exams are extremely difficult compared to what Westerners may be accustomed to. I agree the signal provided by this is low-dimensional, but it’s an objective way to measure applicants.

Written by software != written by AI. But CNBC has to pump.

The hype levels are so overwhelming that AI coding could never hope to meet them. I've tried having a highly-ranked AI coding app write unit tests for a relatively complex codebase. 80% of the generated test cases failed. But an experienced human such as myself could use those as a starting point since it took care of some of the tedious boilerplate. It genuinely saved me some time and annoyance, but could never hope to replace even the lowliest competent junior dev.

That's what AI is good for right now - boilerplate acceleration. But that's clearly not enough to drive the immense transfers of capital that this high ecosystem demands.

Behind the apparent waffling, the one constant is the administration’s effort to direct hatred towards China. You have American military leaders predicting an invasion of Taiwan in a specific time window. It’s all a circus.

Is the limiting factor preventing all websites from being written in assembly also the intelligence of the developer base? What an obtuse take.

This post is about a soundbar, not a smart TV.

That is in the hands of the ultra-wealthy class. What is the goal of enabling people to cross these thresholds? Who does it benefit?

Not saying that the ultra-wealthy have the right to be tyrants, but "peasants" of today's age have a quality of life that is orders of magnitudes better than peasants in the feudal age. This simple truth seems to get lost so easily when talking about inequality in a vacuum.