Julesman

Your sarcasm isn't hitting the way you think it is. I've spent enough time doing my job and enough time on CanIUse to know that the era of worrying about browser compatibility is behind us. I dismiss Opera because it's only at 1% use. There has never been an expectation at any point in my 15 years doing that that I should browser test for browsers at !% use. And realistically, the properties that aren't currently browser compatible are one's that I never use and have little need for. Some are cool and will be compatible before long. But I can't really remember the last time I looked up a property I wanted to use and found it would be problematic for anything other than Opera. Granted, my attitude might be different if I was building sites for an international audience.

Lol. I certainly know many people feel that way, otherwise Tailwind wouldn't exist. But I'm a strict adherent to the concept that you keep your languages separate. You should not have to wonder whether you need to go to your html or css file to change the appearance of a site.

False. I do professional front end development and haven't browser tested with any rigor in over a year. Who cares about Opera. Seriously.

It's AWESOME!!! IE died! Bloated frameworks have become irrelevant! No more modernizers. You can just use it the way it's supposed to be used.

And let me take the opportunity to diss the failure that is mixing your styles into your layout with Tailwind and it's endless and illegible bloat of unreadable html.

So stating reasonable conjecture is bad because it fuels baseless conjecture? This doesn't sound like your milieu.

I stand by my statement. Terrible people can build good things.

I sense an agenda in how many empty hit piece stories we are seeing about LLMs from mainstream sources. No not some paranoid lizard people agenda (thank god) but just the force of the status quo protecting itself.

Institutions are clearly threatened by this tech as it promises to upend many professional fields and economic relationships. In my case I'm seeing teachers suggest that GPT will ruin education, as though we haven't said the same thing about calculators or the internet or whatever the next thing is for generations.

Like many similar articles in the NYT and WaPo this article is nearly anti-intellectual is it's lack of basic research and curiosity. It's like these people haven't used the thing for even a half hour. But yet they speak with authority on the implications.

That demonstrates fear or gatekeeping. It demonstrates an interest in slowing down the change we are seeing. And it's pretty embarrassing to watch because you can't really hide that agenda when you don't know what you are talking about and are only coming from a place of defending the status quo.

Who buys into this? Who is this for? Who is convinced? They must be talking to people who want this answer and find it comforting. But given that it's not really very insightful or true, and has no shelf life, what's the point?

I really wonder.

Oooorrrr.... ChatGPT, a very beta product, is ok at creating code and it's cool that you can ask it to analyze your code for how secure it is and to recommend ways to make it more secure.

Any custom instance (I built one) of ChatGPT does not require signup. And this is not truly anonymous at all. Meh.

This is objectively false and I always have a hard time believing that this is an organic opinion free of industry influence.

Nuclear power is the power industry's answer to "clean" energy because it preserves the centralized delivery system in place. It does not disrupt the current distribution model.

No matter what you think of the safety of nuclear power, what I said is a fact and the industry spends billions on PR, lobbying, and even online trolls, trying to get people to agree.

Nuclear power is objectively not safe, with the one caveat that we are talking about long term. In the long term even one accident is absolutely devastating to entire regions of the planet. This risk is simply NOT acceptible.

In other words, even if wind and solar are more expensive or less profitable, they are simply better alternatives from the standpoint of humanity's continued existence on the planet.

There is no effective argument about this. I always get hit with the safety argument when I say this, but it's just all fully false. There is no safety argument because even an outlying and unlikely scenario is too devastating. And these scenarios, given enough time, simply will occur.

Or at least change Fahrenheit to Celsius. heh.

Imagine what the 300 most creative people here could do with 1 million dollars to invest in a business concept?

This. Empathy. People acting like they sound smart when they talk like a USC sophomore who equates logic with truth. As if the human condition were an actuary table. As if triage was a guiding principle of human culture. This kind of thinking slips easily into fascism. Ayn Rand writ large.

Such a lack of nuance. We can pragmatically recognize that pandora's box has been opened and also, at the same time, have an ounce of empathy. We can even like where things are going, understand the negative impact on some, AND still have empathy.

What I see here is emotional immaturity and the arrogance of someone who never learned the value of maturity. Lazy thinking. Self-serving modes of thought that allow you to feel ok with selfishness. Unchecked capitalist ideology. The psychology of greed.

It's sad.

DEPENDS ON THE USE!!!!

Folks. Not every topic is confusing to GPT. Not every topic is complex. And NOT EVERY TOPIC is appropriate to ask it. It has rational use cases. It also had totally inappropriate use cases.

GPT is never going to tell you that 2+2=5 under raw conditions. If you poke at it and run it through some kind of attempt to confuse it, I know it could. But if you open up ChatGPT freshly and ask it you will get the same answer every single time.

I'm using it to teach intro to web development. It will never tell me that color affects font size. It will never tell me that a span is a block element. It just won't. It's entirely reliable for that use. Now get into higher level coding and the incorrectness begins.

BUT, that simply means that generating higher level code is NOT a good use case.

Right?

I second this notion.

I'm just gunna drop this here with no comment.

https://www.thc.texas.gov/public/upload/preserve/museums/fil...

Larger corporations, profit and non-profit, DO NOT CARE ABOUT PEOPLE. Period! Some of the people in them do. There are good people all around us. And knowing some of them we may be fooled into thinking that the system we are all a part of has a conscience.

It does not.

I'm not talking about small or even medium sized business or non-profits. Some great things happening out there. But past a certain size all businesses simply serve a profit motive and the status quo. And for those paying attention, the status quo is post-imperial decay. Putrified late-stage capitalism that we can only really ignore on big doses of entertainment and our legal or illegal drugs of choice.

Large corporations do NOT regulate themselves in any way. They are not able to serve any public good.

Before the '80s our government did serve several regulatory purposes. But the military/industrial intelligence apparatus has dismantled that effectively for so long that our government is simply a means of placating the populace with the thin illusion of balance.

These are basic historical facts. Facts that the public, on either side of the political spectrum, are ever more able to argue against due to declining literacy and media echo chambers full of simple lies and convenience logical fallacies.

Both corporations and our government do not serve the public good except to an ever smaller degree required to maintain the social order.

</endofrant>

Shall we do the Declaration of Independence next? ... This is so silly.

Not a solid read on my comment, but it's an interesting point. Sensitivity to those left behind as conservative defense of tradition.

I want every coal miner to lose their job. Every last one. That would be a fantastic thing and a necessary thing. That doesn't mean I want those people to suffer. We can help them out. We can give them assistance and job training.

In other words we can embrace the future without being cruel. That's not a conservative sentiment at all. And yes, many people would like to move forward in a thoughtful way that doesn't leave people in the dust.

As far as affecting different people, LLMs are about to squish the middle class. You can be quite sure that the impact will be very different than when similar changes affect the working class.

We are going to be seeing so much of this. It is sad. Start up culture at times seems to insist that all progress must be good, as though progress itself will be thwarted by reflection or honesty.

Something is lost and something is gained, but that doesn't make the losses painless or irrelevant. We can be pragmatic and have empathy at the same time.

What I don't think we should do is act like every change is inherently good. Perhaps something valuable will be lost to efficiency and the bottom line. Hopefully something will also be gained.

Let's not be in a hurry to declare implications. And let's try to be helpful.

I know I will get downvoted for this as off topic, but this is just the latest blog we've seen in this top 30 of many that show ZERO regard for legibility. Yes, I can zoom my browser, but c'mon.

A 13px font for paragraph text is nearly hostile. It's not that legible to people with perfect eyesight, but then it's not at all legible to anyone with imperfect eyesight. It's like saying you don't care if anyone who reads your blog would struggle doing that. And given how very simple it is to change, it's kind of insulting, specifically given how many years usability has been a thing.

10 years ago I wouldn't have written this comment. But now this isn't how you behave if you have an audience.

Definitely a PR move. But I figure it's about implying that the work isn't that hard and that the reasons for unionization are overblown. In other words, the work is easy so they don't need a raise. Some BS like that.

I'm a dev using ChatGPT and CoPilot. I work more efficiently as a result.

Currently I don't think LLMs represent a risk to my job in that I work for a small company and personally handle many aspects of the development process on my own. However, at a larger company where those roles are spread out I could see some of them going away soon.

I work on a large WordPress theme. If an LLM were trained on that theme it could possibly have the global scope I need to make changes and understand their impact. It won't be long before we have software that allows you to easily train an LLM for your use. That could threaten my job. But then, my company would still need someone to manage and QA the results.

So I see fewer jobs, but not the end of the profession.

Nuclear power is advocated principally by the current energy industry regime because it maintains their existing distribution model. A model that is disrupted by wind and solar power generated locally or even individually.

I know some people honestly believe that it's a good option. But for every one of them there are three industry lobbyists and social media bots who are working directly for the industry making drastically short sighted arguments.

Don't tell me it's safe when other options will never ever make whole parts of the world a toxic wasteland for the rest of human history.

I'm all for web design brutalism. It has a place in all this mess. But when it gets preachy and over-general it often becomes condescending and dismissive of entire fields of study and practice, whole categories of use, and entire groups of users.

Among all the accepted threats to humanity's future, AI is one of the least founded at this point. We all grew up with this cautionary fiction. But unless you know something everyone else doesn't, the near term existential threat of AI is relatively low.

This comment is well intended, I'm sure. I always respect anyone trying to 'stick to the facts.' Unfortunately, it's just not history. Easy to google history. You are simply not familiar with how this all works.

Thanks for this. Nice to see it at the top of the conversation. Two words: Operation Mockingbird. The big news outlets get daily intelligence briefs. This isn't even controversial. But the real problem within that setting is self-censorship. You don't get the job unless you've proven than you know what not to say. Many credible books on that topic to read.

I know it could seem this way. And now that's true. But when it first happened big media largely ignored it or parroted available talking points without any real attempt to do meaningful reporting. But I agree that the impact on people is more important than the media critique.

I see a lot of these responses starting with "The reason." I don't see many people talking about institutional bias. I don't see a lot of people talking about this disaster getting no coverage while the media is stuck on shooting down balloons. I don't see many people talking about the fact that if this was anywhere close to wealthy people that it would have been headline news. I don't see many talking about the absolutely soulless response of everyone responsible. I don't see many talking about historical precedents that paint a clear picture of what is likely happening. I don't see many talking about how the best coverage of the event has been on Tiktok and that people on the ground might have something valuable to report.

This is NOT s trivial thing in any way. This is not a wait and see thing. This is a total disaster that will impact the health of people in the area for generations. And without any pushback the terrible people responsible well likely just get away with it.