rxhernandez

That's not at all what they wrote. Genuinely curious, did you misread? If not, what did you hope to gain by creating this strawman?

Not even remotely the same thing. You completely glossed over me saying potentially broken software and heavily populated. Surely there is a way to simulate a left turn signal in a more safe manner on software this early in the testing process.

> And that this is a test version of the software isn't irrelevant, it makes a huge difference—I am much less opposed to internal company testers who know what they're doing than I am to a public beta in the hands of people who believe Tesla's (really egregious) marketing.

There is absolutely no reason you should assume "testers" know what they are doing. I have met plenty of people with decades of experience in "testing" barely know what they are doing. Even in the case they know what they are doing, they shouldn't be testing a *deadly* vehicle with potentially broken software on heavily populated *public* roads.

The complete opposite is probably sufficient as well. It gets a lot easier to tolerate bullshit when you realize almost every stranger's asshole-ish behavior is a function of something wrong with themselves or their environments.

I just look at those behaviors as huge billboards that broadcast what's wrong with that person (as long as it's a stranger; if they're not a stranger it's a completely different story)

Kinda hard to be either without being left-leaning

Reddit AMAs

> Everything just works

That's... That's a huge stretch. I've been on an outdated version of pycharm for nearly a year now because they broke support for docker-compose in a pretty huge way. Moreover, I have yet to have a pycharm project where I didn't need to create my own docker override file.

There are at least a hundred million you would have to convince to stop using that abbreviation before it goes out of fashion in the US.

I was in the process of learning it at the end of my 20s but hadn't quite gotten there until the cusp of 29/30. I did firmware, data science, physics research, and developed a scientific software framework before that.

As an entrepreneur twice over, it had everything to do with being able to spend the most productive hours of my day on being an entrepreneur and being armed with basic full stack web development skills.

I had zero success in entrepreneurship in my 20s and I was delusional to think I could accomplish anything in entrepreneurship without both of those properties (and I tried multiple times a year for the decade of my 20s). It would take someone truly amazing* to pull off starting a successful business while working a full-time job.

* And I say that in contrast to myself, who has been called talented more than a few times by my managers and still couldn't pull it off until I earned enough money to take time off

It would be interesting to see how many of these criticisms are criticisms of these things as they stood and not for their potential; it seems ridiculous to place the onus on the critics to see if someone can execute well in the future.

> Are class components really on the down & out?

In the popular sense, they've been on the down and out for years now.

> It turned in to a bit of a mess until I went for a refactor into classes and everything became much more clear.

in my experience, once the logic starts to become complex, you need to develop custom hooks so that a given component stays readable.

The hooks paradigm is a lot harder once you get past the basics, but I wouldn't go back for reasons I could articulate if there's any interest.

Why even interview them?

I mean, I tend to avoid games where I stand to lose a lot when I know I'm playing alongside a "master" of that game because there are few corners you can turn where you know you actually got what you're looking for (a master could, for example, stumble on their words and give a sincere sounding answer that was manufactured to look that way from the start).

> only once or twice have I ever encountered a showstopper dependency resolution issue

I've encountered them with other languages and they're the sort of thing where one time is more than enough to make me feel like it could get me fired; they're Never (with a capital N) okay imo

I would bet that at least 90% of the best embedded engineers I've known, don't have basic Linux shell knowledge. Frankly, Your ability to develop good code has little to do with whether or not you've touched a specific OS' shell

So obvious that a lot of successful people here think they did it all on their own with very little luck involved. So obvious that there is an entire political party whose foundation is built around, "if I could do it, so can you."

They are pretty interesting because it establishes limits from which you can work to get a sense of where your model starts to give correct answers (idk about you but that's how I was trained to create models in my physics degree).

From there you can move on to when bad luck trumps any amount of ability. For example, what sucks about being impoverished? Not having good access to a computer, right? From there it's not hard to draw on other things (e.g. abuse, culture, poverty) that make having good computer access a huge challenge. It becomes pretty apparent that luck plays a huge factor in success.

Pretty interesting to me.

It's funny how you say you have a natural ability to do great things while simultaneously saying that people should stop making excuses and just gain your natural ability.

And I'm not someone who is a stranger to hard work; most of my loved ones have complained with great sadness for years that I work way too hard.

In my experience, most of us hard workers didn't spend years training ourselves to work hard; we just wake up, work hard, and wonder how the hell the past decade of our lives just slipped through our fingers without any meaningful memories besides work.

Yeah, if you completely ignore people who are born in destitute and corrupt countries. How is someone supposed to gain access to a computer when they can't even feed themselves?

Imagine someone saying that Nazis caused good as well as bad and not seeing how that necessarily translates to ends justifying means

How is talking about ends justifying means remotely a reach? Direct quote:

"Then, in late November 2017, I published a column in The Times of London, in which I referred approvingly to Bruce Gilley’s controversial article ,'The Case for Colonialism,' and argued that we Britons have reason to feel pride as well as shame about our imperial past"

Neglecting what should be an obvious comment on Britons having pride in the results of colonialism (re: ends) despite the shame behind their ancestors actions (re: means), the problem has never been related to how much it benefits anyone. It's always been about the evil and the fact that there were always better options than evil.

I think this is predicated on the ends justifying the means since the author seems to acknowledge that there are some deeply problematic things with colonialism while simultaneously acknowledging that they should have pride in the results.

What should be of no surprise to anyone, anywhere, is that people are deeply unmotivated to ever see the ends in a positive light if they were on the other end of that barrel full of evil means. Moreover, to say that someone should have pride in colonialism should translate to a tacit acknowledgement that colonialism was a great thing (if it's not great, why have pride in it at all?). And if it's a great thing why shouldn't we do it again?

I mean, does anyone genuinely think any value the Nazis produced would make up for the enormity of their evil? Should Germans have pride in Nazis because they helped pioneer rocketry?

I agree that it's important to keep in mind that this is an early version and that criticisms like these, for mature versions of it, will hopefully age like milk.

Early versions notwithstanding, I think what's different for search engines like Google is that Google does not usually give you answers to your questions, it gives you places to look for your answers; and even when it does give you answers, it gives them in a format that makes you understand it's not the answer, just an answer quoted verbatim from some source (I have deep issues with the way search engines go about this but that's a story for another day). This stands in stark contrast to ChatGPT which gives you one answer under the guise of being great at giving you a "good enough answer" while not giving you the ability to check the source of that answer.

This reads like my writing in high school in the cases where I was too lazy to do the reading but had a vague outline of what I was supposed to be writing about; that is, there's no real substance to it that people haven't heard a million times before; it lacks the soul that usually comes from becoming intimate with the nuances and quirks of the material.

If anything, the average has far more errors in it. It's a trope on Reddit that experts get downvoted while amateurs who reflect the consensus of other amateurs get upvoted and repeated. Amateurs tend to outnumber experts in real life anyways, having their opinions become more authoritative (because some "AI" repeats it) is probably not a great direction to head in.

That's a core problem with this. If people with expertise can't even tell us clear boundaries of its truth, how is anyone else going to come to rely on this for that purpose. I mean, you could say you defined a fuzzy boundary and I shouldn't trend towards that boundary from the wrong direction (re: text games that use different tokens than the ones it was trained on) but, how will I know I'm too close to this boundary when I'm trending from a direction of doing things it's supposed to be good at?

It can't play tic tac toe, fine. But I know it gets concepts wrong on things I'm good at. I've seen it generate a lot of sentences that are correct on their own, but when you combine them to form a bigger picture, it paints something fundamentally different than what's going on.

Moreover, I've had terrible results with it as something to generate creative writing; to the extent that it's on par with a lazy secondary school student that only knows a rudimentary outline of what they're writing about. For example, I asked it to generate a debate between Chomsky and Trump and it gives me a basic debate format around a vague outline of their beliefs where they argue respectfully and blandly (both of which Trump is not known for).

It's entirely possible I haven't exercised it enough and that it requires more than the hours I put into it or it just doesn't work for anything I find interesting; which I guess tracks, it did an okay enough job at generating a cover letter when I asked it to.

You're acting like it's a grid of arbitrary size and an arbitrary amount of characters. It's a 3x3 with 2 choices for each square.

Neglecting that (only because it's harder to navigate whether I should expect it to handle state for an extremely finite space; even if it's in a different representation than it's directly used to), I know I saw a post where it failed at rock, paper, scissors. Just found it:

https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenAI/comments/zjld09/chat_gpt_isn...

I can't speak to the rest of what you wrote because I couldn't be further from the field of civil engineering but if you feel impressed with it on chess, ask it to play game of tic tac toe; for me it didn't seem to understand the very simple rules or even keep track of my position on the grid.

There are so few permutations in tac tac toe that it's lack of memory and lack of ability to understand extremely simple rules make it difficult for me to have confidence in anything it says. I mean, I barely had confidence left before I ran that "experiment" but that was the final nail in the coffin for me.

I've literally asked it to generate stories from prompts and, it has, without fail, generated the most generic stories I have ever read. High school me could have generated better with little to no effort (and I don't say that lightly) and I'm not a good writer by any means.

Moreover, it's first opinion on the things I'm good at has been a special kind of awful. It generates sentences that are true on their face but, as a complete idea, are outright wrong. I mean, you're effectively gaslighting yourself by learning these half truths. And as someone with unfortunate lengthy experience in being gaslit as a kid, I can tell you that depending on how much you learn from it, you could end up needing to spend 3x as much time learning what you originally sought to learn (if you're lucky and the only three things you need to do is learn it very poorly, unlearn it and relearn it the right way)

I really don't understand how engineers are having good experiences with it; a lot of the stuff I've seen it output w.r.t. swe is only correct if you're very generous with your interpretation of it (re: dangerous if you use it as anything more than a casual glance at the tech). W.r.t. anything else it outputs, it's either so generic that I could do it better, outright wrong (e.g. cannot handle something as simple as tic tac toe), or functions as an unreliable source (in cases where I simply don't have the background).

I think it's fun to play with but calling it game changing is a hard pill for me to swallow.