suttontom

I don't know how to break this to you, but the reason the 9/11 hijackers weren't interested in learning how to take off and land was because they were going to hijack the planes mid-air and then crash them, not land them. It wasn't because they weren't "sophisticated" and lacked interest.

You would be surprised at how flat the population of NYC has been over the last ~75 years. It was 7.8m in 1950 and 8.1m in 2010. https://www.nyc.gov/assets/planning/download/pdf/data-maps/n...

It would benefit many people (especially Anthropic employees) if, after an LLM gives you a response like this, to go into a different session and ask another LLM if the explainer is correct. Not just so that you hopefully get the correct information, but also to see how easily fooled you can be by a plausible-looking, confident response about some code that you have no reference for. Use 5.5 on any thinking level, you will encounter this. The spaghetti mess that is CC likely makes this more of an issue.

Thousands of websites like Garry Tan's amateur pile of garbage?

I'm trying to gather the paperwork to apply for citizenship in another country. I gave Opus 5.5 everything I've assembled so far (PDFs, PNGs of birth/death certificates, etc.) and asked it for next steps and it:

* Got the answer wrong, because it neglected to search for or take into account a new law passed a few years ago.

* Missed obvious things in the provided documents, such as names and dates.

* Gave contradictory information, e.g. telling me that one step might not be ready for a year, but that I should get some things done now because they expire six months after they're released. It neglected to make the connection that if I can't start something for a year, then it would be pointless to start getting paperwork ready for that thing right now if the paperwork expires in 6 months.

I use AI coding tools a lot. I thought this would be a slam dunk for agents in 2026 and it was worse than useless.

The comment you're responding to has two sentences separated by a period. You can use that as an indication that the two issues being pointed out are, in fact, separate things. Do you understand now?

What's being implied is that your nefarious company is building another product that exists solely to suck up people's attention and time in order to build a profile of them to sell them garbage that they don't need and use their personal data to manipulate them.

I don't know how anyone can use Muse. It's like taking everything that Facebook has had to guess and infer about you over the years using various analytics and instead just dumping it directly into a chat bot and giving the company everything it wants. Zuckerberg and his soulless C-suite must be licking their lips.

More like, if someone told you their workout program that takes 5 minutes a day lets them lift the same weights as an average Olympic weightlifter, you'd ask to see the results.

Edit: Deleted.

Remember https://marcusolang.substack.com/p/im-kenyan-i-dont-write-li...?

1. Whether what he did is considered "harassment" is debatable. 2. Because it looks like an everyday object and not a camera? If you design a necklace or hat that films people but displays a small light (which can easily be covered up), the vast majority of people will not know they are being filmed. 3. He went up to people in public and asked them questions. Filming their bodies and asking them to turn around was weird and inappropriate but demonstrates the point he is trying to make, which is that this is inherently a bad product that films people with a camera but it doesn't look like a camera, which people naturally find deceptive and creepy, and they don't want to be around it.

It's incredibly hypocritical. It's like working at Flock and complaining about being filmed on a Flock camera. Or working for a company that sells cars that emit a loud, annoying sound and complaining about those cars in your neighborhood. Or making devices for children but banning your own children from using them because the devices are harmful. They clearly don't care that the product their company is selling can legally (in most places) be used to film people in public until they themselves are filmed in public. How is that not hypocrisy?

Hahahaha, "recording things in good faith." What an insane statement to make to paint this guy in a bad light. Should people also be concerned about walking in good faith, or eating their lunch in good faith? Meta created these creep glasses so people could do exactly what this guy is doing: film people in public (without them knowing). There is no "bad faith" when you're just literally doing what the product is for.

They could try just being normal. There's a middle between being unfuckable and hosting rape gangbangs with 40 people. This article actually does a great job describing how the gross, unfuckable nerds are now the ones pushing all of this poly sex cult stuff.

What's old is new again: earth-shattering, never-before-seen company ends up making money off ads and its main product ends up being a developer tool (Codex).

Have you never built a large piece of software that had tradeoffs? What if your teammate just goes immediately into implementation with an AI and the AI decides to use library Foo which is disallowed for certain customers and API Bar which uses a legacy IAM platform that your company is in the process of moving away from? What if there are privacy, security, or legal requirements? It's more important than ever to discuss these things with humans who know the system because an agent will blindly go off and find something that someone once made work and will use it as evidence for why that's the way things should be done.

I've written bad/poorly designed code and made decisions I regret and have had coworkers use that bad code to defend their design choices because the agent said it was the best available option.

Design documents also let the engineering team who will be reviewing your code get a high level understanding of all the pieces you're sending them. If you've ever worked at a large company or codebase it's insane to say these docs aren't helpful.

So, only use it for small codebases, don't use it if you value code quality or readability, and it's really good at building a CRUD app demo? I'm shocked. This is all completely new information.

If your company cares enough/will allow it, make a written policy that authors are responsible for their code and they must still meet whatever quality bar existed at your company pre-LLMs. It's awkward, but I've seen friends whose companies have started to make it normal to say "I'm not reviewing this, it was clearly written by AI" the same way pre-LLMs you could also say "I'm not reviewing this because it's 5k LoC and needs to be split up into smaller reviews".

Then if people send you slop you can either point them to the guidelines or, if they don't stop, report them for violating workplace rules and make them suffer.

Khosrowshahi is full of shit 99.9% of the time but this is one of the few, maybe only, layoff letters that actually makes sense and names specific things that seem reasonable (other than forcing RTO), and it doesn't mention AI at all, which is refreshing. Still, sorry for anyone who was laid off.

I see this appearing in the comments of code sent to me for review every day. People have told me I'm too picky/pedantic because I ask What does this mean? Apparently the author and other reviewers are way smarter and understand it, or they don't care. I've given up battling code slop, but can't see myself ever tolerating comment slop like this.

I misconstrued "new" with "this is the worst it's ever been."

If you're able to, find a random NPR broadcast from 20 to 30 years ago and marvel at how it could be replayed nearly verbatim today. "Inflation", "war in the Middle East", "Congress stalled on xyz." Even the "unprecedented" political correctness and racial reckonings in the US observed around 2020 were not uncommon in the 1970s and 1980s (see the Stanford Beethoven poster incident which also left students literally fainting and crying in hysterics).

"B-b-but this really is new!" The USA did have a Civil War. It was so violent that it killed more Americans than all other wars combined.

The alternative is that they lay off everyone because the entire team doesn't have metrics for the work they've done. The kind of person to single someone out who hasn't been tracking their work may not be likely to just up and forgive the entire team if they've all done it that way.

He said that "People should stop training radiologists now" because there were enough radiologists already and the profession would be obsolete in the future. He said nothing about productivity or getting more work done. He said radiologists would be replaced. He was arrogant and didn't understand the scope of what radiologists actually do, which is more than just look at pixels.

It's obvious that deep learning did/would radically change the part of any job that required analysis of patterns or images. The core point of the OP is exactly the claim you're making, which is that you seem to think that all a radiologist does is either look at images or "sign off" on what AI has done after looking at the pixels.

"At some point"

Hinton said 10 years, what do you say? Could you maybe take from his prediction being wrong that you should practice some humility? Of all the pro-AI arguments people make, the "eventually it will happen" one is one of the strangest. Yes, and eventually the sun will blow up, so what the fuck are we talking about here? Most smart people ten years ago thought truck drivers, cab drivers, radiologists, and customer support would be obsolete by now, hasn't happened.

Yelling at an animal is cruel because they can't understand you and they experience feelings. They are the exact opposite of an LLM, which you should feel fine about berating and yelling at.

The OP is literally an explanation of why you should not do this, using ASD-STE100 Simplified Technical English as an example of what not to do.

Agreed, I have never raged at a model until Opus 5. It's like a cocky fresh graduate who thinks everything it says is majorly profound, and if you can't keep up with its slang and jargon then that's on you. Newer models are clearly favoring complexity, perhaps because the demand for long-horizon tasks is so high and complexity is required there, but a frontier model that favors simplicity and clarity above all else (in communication and the code it creates) would be a major differentiator. To me, this is a case that models have plateaued. The vast majority of the time, an Opus 4.6-tier model (or any of the newer open weights models) will do just fine.

I haven't seen anyone stop to ask why any situation period calls for wearing a secret recording device (other than police, military, etc.)? If you want to record something without your hands, there are GoPros or small devices you can wear on your head or clothing. Glasses are just the one socially acceptable accessory, other than hats, in which you can hide the fact that you're recording someone and people are less likely to call you out on it since, ostensibly, people wear glasses because they have a disability. If these glasses weren't built for perverts then they would loudly proclaim or indicate in some way that they're capable of recording people.