kristiandupont

I expected us to reach RSI when the programming skills went above humans, but this seems like it could get us there much faster

It's obviously a grey zone, but React is generally considered a library more than a framework, and it definitely seems to be among OP's vexations.

>The current common use case for these frameworks is that most developers cannot write original software

It most certainly is not.

>there’s no need for SPA

Many people phrase it like this, insisting that server-rendered HTML is simpler. To me, SPA's are the simpler approach. They remind me more of the .EXE's I used to ship.

Completely agree. I've had to work with NextJS the past three places I've been and I hate it. I get that there are certain use cases where you want SSR, I guess like an e-commerce site where everything is dynamic but the user isn't logged in and you want SEO. But for a regular SPA, running Vite with a simple router (I like https://kyeotic.github.io/raviger/) is orders of magnitude simpler to work with.

>that also conveniently answers why AI won’t (can’t) end humanity

I don't see how that follows from a lack of will in AI.

I think GP wasn't pointing out your "s" but rather your "d" at the beginning. At least, I also assumed that you meant "reindustrialise" rather than "deindustrialise".

Why is that "the point"? You are the second person in this thread to insist on owning it.

I get why it's problematic, obviously, but if it produces statistically better results (which I have no idea of), I don't think it's right to just write it off because of this.

>When does it get too abstract?

When the abstraction detracts more value than it provides.

I think this is an interesting direction to explore. Plotly is fine. So is D3 and plenty of other solutions, but neither represent the ultimate pinnacle of charting.

Perhaps the newer features of React are but thankfully those bits can be completely ignored.

>I went back and explicitly told ChatGPT not to resolve details that didn’t exist in the file.

I don't know what the author thinks this could have meant, other than "give me the original". Making up details is what he is asking it to do.

True, you can't see the eyebrows in the original, but you also can't see (IMO) an absence of eyebrows and since far more people have eyebrows than not, I would be extremely surprised if it had come up with a version without them.

This thread goes into further detail: https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-s-co...

Oh certainly, I was asking what the benefit would be to the opposite!

I wrote x86 assembly back when we were switching from real mode to protected mode, and I still have a feeling that I would not have been able to answer whatever question you asked there in a way that would satisfy you.

I also could no longer tell you how to balance a binary tree or implement Quicksort.

What would be the benefit of this, besides from looking cool?

You can quit apps from the activity monitor. It really does appear to be simulating an OS underneath. I am blown away.

I don't think it's entirely down to that. They have extremely optimized supply chains: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/h7McXnWRCQY

Very nice! Reminds of this classic, focused mostly on the sounds: https://github.com/ange-yaghi/engine-sim

It is to me. And I agree that the term is losing value because it's becoming ubiquitous but it's the differentiation from the first versions of ChatGPT etc., which were purely user input -> LLM -> output driven.

>I know within a second

I am sorry to be pedantic, but the correct phrasing would be "I think I know within a second", which seems like a pretty important distinction.

>LLMs-as-AI can only give us probabilistic outputs based on inputs

I am not completely sure what you are saying here, but it sounds like a variation of the "it's just a stochastic parrot" argument, which is reductionist. The human brain is also just a bunch neurons firing.

I think the two complement each other perfectly and will continue to do so. I keep writing AGENTS.md files for soft rules and custom linter rules for hard ones which IMO is the best of both worlds.

I've heard this sentiment repeated and I believe it, but at least the purpose of my own blog is to communicate insights I've had. I almost make a point out of not blogging unless I feel that I have something truly interesting to share. It seems that flipping that around would come at a price.

Come think it, I feel that I have on the other side of this many times: I read a post or watch a video that opens up something in my brain and I get a sort of crush on the author. I read everything they write or watch all their videos. For some authors, I retain interest. But for others, where it seems like they produce regularly in order to maintain the frequency, I lose interest.

The US suffers from Duverger's Law which means that any vote for anything other than one of the two big parties is wasted. In my country, we currently have 17 different parties, each with different variations of policies. Some are outliers, but many of them have or have had power to some degree over the years. Your cable-tv problem still exists, but to a much smaller extent.

What do you mean? It's a way to mitigate a certain attack vector and as far as I can tell, it works as intended given the circumstances it was designed under.

I don't know whether the author has the competence to theorize about these things or not. What I do know is that understanding the intricacies of how LLM's work does not mean that you are likely to understand or foresee societal implications better than anyone else.

>Making systems fully deterministic ignores the entire purpose of having agents involved.

That sounds backwards to me. I hope that most places don't see "having agents involved" as the ultimate purpose, but will use agents where it makes sense, i.e. when deterministic systems fall short.

>no, at no point would airplanes have been falling out of the sky

The assertion may have been unfounded, but I think it's just as unreasonable to assert the opposite. Bugs have cascading effects and in a sufficiently complex piece of software they can create chaos with unpredictable outcomes.