RugnirViking

Huge part of it. A big part of my idea of the negative impact of the internet in general is that it constantly exposes you to people who are doing the same things you love and are interested in, just way better and more effortless, alongside yet more people criticising even these golden gods for this or that failure you could only hope to reach.

It's an imposter syndrome machine, but one you could perhaps tune out because it wasn't really useful for much except entertainment. LLMs bring the experience of being followed around by that machine talking into your ear any time you have an issue or problem - you could just ask your fabulously talented friend to do it instead. And they are sadly tremendously useful so keeping that mental compartmentalisation is way harder

I think there is a basic human need to to be "the guy" everyone goes to when they need help with a specific thing. Where "everybody" is roughly a Dunbar's numbers worth of people, a tribe or a village if you will.

We've developed fabulously effective ways to wrench the fulfillment of this need away from a huge amount of people

Surely you can see that for basically every example of this sort of problem, fully defining a deterministic check is the same as finding them all?

Like you're telling me if I had a script that printed all X, and it's my responsibility to ensure it has no bugs, then the agent could tell me all X and I could trust it?

This is not helpful at all? I am capable of running scripts myself and using the output directly.

> You could potentially ask an LLM to explain it

You can ask frontier models with all the bells, whistles, language servers etc to give you every example of X. And it gives you 12 examples and says that's all of them. When you know damn well there are at least 40 (but not exactly how many). So you say no, you know it has missed some, such as X23, and X27. So it goes away and comes back again and says yes, there are 41 X, here they are. How much digging should you do to see if its right?

I have many times gone looking myself to find that it has still missed some. Asked it to go check for those, to look harder it goes oopsie and says now im sure ive gotten all of them (has it?)

All this to say, I have been burned, repeatedly, multiple times a day, for the last year+. I still use these tools, but I truly cannot understand how some people treat them as oracles that know everything about our codebases

this + image translate with copy+paste is the only reason I ever use yandex of all places...

In an era of slop, quality is king. I honestly think the author should just ignore the cheap clones and continue selling quality software. The idea that the clones are perfect, bug free, or will continue to be maintained and hosted is a fantasy. There will always be people with low incomes in the third world trying very hard to get something for nothing/cheap, and they are the worst customers. No loyalty, highly intelligent, and will drop you immediately if a competing offer is 1% cheaper or offers what they need for free.

Adverts are likely a poor business model here - if you want to sell to professionals and creatives, the visual look of the software matters. It should really be subscription or one time licence

one hopes at least that the taboo on the bearing of loads is restricted to metaphorical loads only, lest lorry drivers and porters become the next victim of the algospeak spectre

how can someone find ads becoming persuasive. I don't want or seek them out, but those that I do see are some of the least relevant crap in my life. so many car ads (dont have a license), ads in languages I don't speak (including languages that aren't widely spoken in the country I live in), ads targeted at demographics I clearly am not (pensioners, people with specific diseases, parents), adverts for schools (I have a masters degree, I'm unlikely to be going to a college)

"targeting" is a myth imo. If they even tried a little bit, they wouldn't have these problems.

well. That or a nice spiral! :)

I think you missed the part where they included more than just the metadata he requested (they sent the first 256 characters of each email)

his original requests didnt even ask for the subject line. he just wanted to see who emails who to make a graph of how the city communicates. instead they sent him the contents of the emails, including highly sensitive ones

i think you are misunderstanding what a semiconductor is

I think theres a discovery problem. I've not found very many MOOCs that are good - a lot of platforms are terrible. The intersection of money/status/attention economy with this stuff seems to drive directly against quality.

Im literally at the point that my main discovery method for this sort of thing is word of mouth in real life. Everything on the internet is poisoned

do they make transparent n95? transparent enough for facial expressions?

feels like a lot of money.

I suggest you get a jetson nano instead if youre doing robotics or anything serious with an RPI.

If you just want a cheap computer, you're probably better off with a second hand laptop, probably cheaper too

getting on with, surely

would you expect that statistics would back you up on this? that people with graduate degrees are more likely to say, die in an accident?

you think engineers are responsible? why?

> People don't realize there's an aspect to creativity that dwells within the human brain and the morass of personal visceral human experience that can't be reconstructed

Your point here seems to be based more on faith than anything concrete. It is a sibling with the idea humans have "immortal souls" and the like - something we would like to be true more than anything that actually is.

This being said, I do think AI systems are very bad at creativity. But I don't think that it's impossible that they could be, nor do I have any idea why, specifically, they are bad at creativity. At this point in interpretability research, anyone telling you they do know is lying.

something selling a lot doesn't mean it's good. Is McDonald's good food? by some metrics of course it is. But if someone says McDonald's makes bad food, I know what they mean

> Imagine picking up a new product that will take you weeks of practice to use at basic level

This does not work on developers. Their empathy fails them here - because they absolutely would try a new product that takes weeks of practise. They like (or at least tolerate) learning complex+cool new things, thats why they are developers...

that sounds good for literally everyone that isn't an anthropic/openai shareholder

we have it in our enterprise. The admins have to individually approve new model releases. Ours don't enable astra :(

yeah. Even though high got the leg correct, the pedal the rear leg is on is in front , giving the impression it's somehow reaching under the chain and frame with it's leg. Not great

you just know they considered "novel" and "epic" internally and decided against both for being too normal

I can't say that I do. Covered eyes or pitch black room, I don't see anything like "static", either stationary or moving.

iirc you can still turn the compaction limit up in codex, though they don't make it easy. It costs way more when you use "large context" though, more than the ~256k that codex allows by default. You can also use the large context via the api directly

oh god, yeah. Thats difficult to look at

ham radio is the coolest technology in the world but sadly mostly allows you to talk to old people who have the same attitude as stack overflow mods - "you're doing it wrong"

The key question is of course what happens when this happens all at once, to the whole economy. One company suffering from financialisation or enshittification means customers just go elsewhere. A whole economy doing it all at once results in major loss of trust, normalisation and legitimisation of scams, and collapse of empires.

this is incredible tbh. Surprisingly performant for what it is, and looks nice despite its choice.

The LLM isms are as ever bizzare, a classic case of explaining what doesnt need to be explained, and not explaining what needs to be explained.

"the weapons test is fictional, nothing is harmed" as I see an ascii spaceship blow up saturn.

constant reminders that the spaceship im watching travel across the observable galaxy in seconds is made up. Like yeah, obviously...

> makes me wonder if the whole field has just gotten dumber in the 21st century

it's the finance system. It's affecting everything. We are building not to make money from clients but to please investors, who don't know anything about anything beyond a report every quarter and some random public comments you've never heard of that the press office made. So much money is controlled by stupid algorithms doing stuff like ctrl-f'ing the company quaterly report for mentions of "AI" or "agentic" (not a literal example, irl its thousands of random equally stupid metrics divorced from reality) that its distorting the market

Companies activities all revolving around getting a piece of the investment avalanche, so "we can replace employees" works both for the llm companies and for the companies whose workers are being replaced. Either way, its assumed this makes them more profitable. It probably will, at least in the short term.

And as we all know, there genuinely is a lot of waste and momentum in large companies, so you can cut half your employees, claim you're replacing them with ai, and actually replace them with nothing, and you'll still shuffle onwards for years or more, anything actually important people will keep doing, and the other stuff people will slowly stop. But this is trading off difficult to measure things like tech debt, security, compliance and brand strength that are slowly eroded for short term metrics, which is always a losing game in the long run.

Anyone sensible already knew that the core platform team was all that was needed to maintain the core platform, and the other teams were there for various other reasons, some of which were sensible and some of which were not. The key in business is presumably to identify which is which, but anyone claiming that process is easy or even possible without making costly mistakes is foolish