0c3ca83

While the parody has potential, I think the jokes need some work. I think it's not quite hitting because it's too off the wall crazy, but there's no twist.

I suppose you think that you could shoot people without a gun?

I revise my statement, this is must be a joke account.

Rejecting it entirely is the least bad option. Supporting local models is not only antisocial, it's inferior in terms of results. If you want to be obsolete on multiple axes, use local models.

The only same option is societal rejection. It's time for legislation and lobbying.

Exactly, the way airplanes are just an interface through which we walk.

Geez, when did people get this stupid? Was it LLMs, or were they always this way?

Yeah. Because we don't want hacker news assholes to find them and destroy them, the way they've been systematically pillaging the rest of the Internet.

"I saw you posted about a community.."

The only correct answer is to give those people the middle finger.

And to work to pass legislation to give them the middle finger.

AI may be one of the most harmful technologies we have created. It's time to treat it as toxic.

Yes, we gutted anything that didn't suck about work.

Show up, take your money, and get out. Hope that they don't decide they've figured out how to automate you, and build up savings in case they did.

Care about your work as much as your employer cares about you, and remember the layoffs.

Get away from work if you want to socialize.

Welcome to the world HN has cultivated. I hope you enjoy the place trillions of dollars are going.

Too bad. The entire AI project is antisocial.

AI is the attack. You can't possibly be this clueless, so I only have to assume trolling.

And agents are very bad at enforcing.

This is just adding wishful thinking to the pile of trash.

Sounds miserable

Of course not. I want to be automated out of a job after paying for expensive hardware to run a model that doesn't work.

The whole AI world is run by sociopaths that want to make human brains economically uncompetitive comparedto computers. If you think running local models will save you, you're either very pessimistic about the future of AI, or you haven't thought it through.

These are the same senders that are correctly configuring DMARC?

Right. And if you mandate dkim, as seems to be the case with servers that demand dmarc, what's the issue? You reject the emails where dkim isn't set.

Or do you think it's critical to support mail that doesn't have dkim?

LMAO. If nobody is looking at the code, how would you know, and why would you care?

And, no, it doesn't actually work. Agentic engineering is a myth by people who got high on their own farts.

And what should a provider do if the dmarc policy says that none of the dkim or dmarc records should matter? What was the point of spf saying what servers could send, or dkim specifying signing keys?

"Oh, please, don't ignore the other two ways I told you to ignore unauthorized messages" shouldn't need a knob.

"why hire humans?

"So we can sue them when our customers get angry"

DMARC is a DNS record that says "send emails about spoofed messages here", or optionally "I don't need you to tell me that scammers exist on the internet".

It doesn't prevent spoofing, it doesn't say which IPs are authorized to send on behalf of a domain, it doesn't sign messages. Spoofed messages are still sendable.

Can you explain the benefit of only accepting email if Microsoft knows that you may or may not accept emails about scammers unsuccessfully spoofing your email domain? (Note, there's nothing you can do if they do tell you.)

Don't confuse DMARC with DKIM or SPF; DMARC doesn't actually do anything for email security.

I agree, it sounds like you have a problem between your keyboard and chair, if you're generating any volume of output and not getting it in detail.

The act of vetting it and finding the failures will increase understanding, but at a cost in speed over doing the research from scratch. (Generating subtly wrong text is often a good way to test understanding, and the output of AI systems is typically a mangled clone of some other well understood system. A very good exercise is building your internal pattern recognition so you can tell what's been mangled, mashed, and served up)

AI is very good at making the mash sound plausible, however, so if you don't look extremely closely, you end up repeating instead of dissecting it. And if you're hoping to learn from the AI how to design a system, you're in trouble.

At which point it's vibe coding, not engineering.

Yes. The code I produce in a year I could type in a week. The time goes into understanding the problem. You're not going to get significantly more code without reducing the level of understanding.

The problem with AI is that it's entire selling point is saving time by not needing to think very deeply about topics.

The writing is downstream of that.

Ah, yes, because just like a rice cooker, the work takes the same amount of time, it's just using less space on the stove, and is more reliable.

Wait, no, a rice cooker doesn't seem to fit.

Who cares about the theory? The fact is that the world is now worse due to LLM use.

And it's not just restricted to software. Everything I care about is getting worse.

Dribbling about how it could theoretically be better doesn't help undo the damage. "Imagine how much fun we could have playing baseball", says the man with the baseball bat, as he kneecaps you.

This reads like "I used to enjoy making a home cooked meal for my family, but now I can buy ten off doordash in the same time".

in the end it's just sad.

Have you considered asking them to write the prompts?

I hear this all the time, but the software I use is becoming obviously buggier and less pleasant.

It seems most people are bad at evaluating the quality of their work, especially if they purchased it from Anthropic.

Welcome to the minority.

Just press accept, who cares. If they're not giving you time to review, they can get what they demand.