WhyIsItAlwaysHN

Well I bet you didn't have to convince them to leave messenger back then.

It's not that they are not capable of figuring out something more complex. It's that it's hard to convince non-tech savvy friends to switch apps and it becomes much harder if the alternative needs setup or feels unfamiliar .

I had the same thought today. I had no fights in HN since years of being on here, but there's much more aggression recently.

To put it simply, I need a messenger app to talk to other people. Most people I talk to are not programmers or very tech savvy.

Putting them on Signal requires me to convince them to download an app from the play store, with thr same name. The app is very similar to messenger or whatsapp and they're used to the functionality already. So many of my friends made an account so we can talk.

Anything more involved and they stay on meta's garden. Any successful messaging app needs to prioritize "normies" to get users.

Definitely try to take a break from negative news and online discourse.

This is just a discussion on a news site. Neither of us wants to bring in a dystopia.

You can argue about the risks of a brain interface and maybe I will agree. But just dooming and being dismissive makes the world less bearable today rather than a future hypothetical.

Good luck

Well let's get some more capacity then. I don't see any good brain to computer interfaces developed yet.

That's what I'm saying though. It's a new challenge to make the mathematician a net positive again.

We can consider what makes a human a net negative in the loop and augment humans with tools to collaborate.

I think there's still challenges.

The main one I see is the question of how we can use an LLM as humans to produce something harder than the LLM can by itself.

I like to think of it with an analogy. Suppose I was granted the privilege of having a world renowned human expert as my personal assistant, but she had no initiative of her own. How could I collaborate with her?

I would definitely need to keep learning more to understand what she says. I would also need tools to augment my ability to follow along and she would need tools to bring knowledge down to my level of understanding.

One might argue humans are unnecessary in the above process, but I think that's just failing the challenge of keeping up. So I try

I think you're blaming the wrong people. Most of the censorship I've seen is coming from ad funded platforms wanting to please corporations. Independent artists create all kinds of offensive content.

Unless you mean that there is less slurs and jokes against minorities, which is an improvement tbh.

This is trivially false, the text gets transformed into activations for the weights. If there is reasoning it's in the connection pattern of the weights.

The fact that the output produces one token at a time does not mean that the LLM's internal state is processing just the next token

Try considering this with some nuance. Many people likely do not know that cows grieve or their bubble of habits and upbringing prevents this fact from reaching them. A story that brings empathy towards any animal is a step towards less suffering for all animals.

The continue keyword is also important, or alternatively the condition to run it.

I often fail to notice it on the first look of some snippet of code

I don't think it will ever be able to make perfect extensions, because there is no perfect extension. Part of creative work is human imperfections. Part of me being invested in a series is because I know it will end at some point.

If there's infinite star trek episodes, I don't care to watch it. I'd rather spin a fidget spinner instead.

I think this is good in general for being able to see what happens in the code of a PR, but probably more so to seniors.

If anything will be missing from juniors it will be the ability to run code in their heads if they've only written code via AI.

Is this just an ad for the product? How is this connected specifically to junior engineers? Is it implying that they cannot debug code without this kind of tool while more experienced people can?

So no youtube?

This line is taken very weirdly out of context in this comment though.

The article's topic is brain to AI interfaces. She mentions this quote as a "vision" from 2035, where not only can thoughts inform AI but AI can respond in thought too.

When we get used to a good tool it becomes an extension of ourselves.

How is this AI psychosis? Is it that it's very unrealistic for such an interface to be created in the next 10 years? Or is it that there's a fear of letting AI interfere with one's thoughts lest they lose themselves?

The mistake there is to point it at code to figure out performance optimizations.

The place to find them would be performance profiles, query plans, telemetry. The guidance for perf still applies, measure before and after change.

The issue is that the code often does not contain the information to do a perf optimization. Eg. you can't tell your cache size, the volumes of data in your DB or the latency of your network through just the text. Should you provide this context, you can get better results.

This is a discussion about animal intelligence. Jumping spiders have a different brain layout than bees, which are formally insects. Other insects are more like the bee than spiders.

So in this case, it matters that spiders are not in fact insects in the strict sense.

Spiders are not insects though https://www.burkemuseum.org/collections-and-research/biology...

Awesome work, the detector seems accurate on a bunch of texts I tried, surprisingly even human/ai hybrid texts

AI companies are trying to mechanize skill and knowledge and to own the infrastructure around it. If they succeed, your suggestion does not work. Even if they can't succeed, they will try because that's the most obvious path to maximizing profit for them.

Also about "creating" means of production, these companies actively try to sabotage this as another profit maximization strategy. They buy all the ram, so others cannot compete. They buy startups who succeed, so they stop competing.

It's not aspersions, it's just describing the phenomenon.

Even if I take your suggestion to heart, once my company would be big enough, if I wanted to optimize for profit, I would have to do the same as these companies.

The end result is concentrated power.

What I meant is that nefariousness from people is not a prerequisite. It's a machine that wants to maximize all profit and all the evil is a natural product. If you magically put saints in charge they would be eaten and replaced by the same kind of people very quickly if the end goal remains.

There is no nefariousness in owning all the means of production, it's the endgame of maximizing profit.

However the result is exactly the same, concentration of power.

If you own 6 houses, you don't only have an income the size of a full-time job but also make money out of the appreciation of property prices. Couldn't you and your immediate family retire by just selling these 6 houses? Or is the situation different in Seattle?

Also you are saying you are also working as a senior SWE. How are you so involved with 55 tenants and balance a full-time job at the same time? I've known people with 1 tenant who needed days off to deal with their issues, I find it hard to imagine personally dealing with 55.

Honestly curious here

Language barrier (bulldozer is used as a placeholder in my native language) , I should have said heavy machinery

Consider using agent mode for some things, you are definitely missing out.

The analogy I've had for myself is that it feels like using a bulldozer to dig rather than a shovel. If you use it to dig archaeological artifacts, it can make things worse than you started. A lot of the work however, is just moving dirt around, so you are wasting time by using a shovel.

Maybe you can support schemas in more dialects by using a similar approach to a little tool I made: sqlscope.netlify.app

Basically integrate sqlglot to translate the schema between dialects and then use a base dialect for generating the schema.

The two tools seem complementary and you seem to be a better designer, so it would be nice to see it all together

Well it still looks suspicious if a user creates 50 PRs in one go. So you would close them automatically.

As for well-documented, the reviewer can decide that when they are reviewing the smaller PR.

Nobody said volume is not a problem, but closing down contributions entirely is a step too far.

They could make two kinds of pull requests and add much more strict criteria for public contributions. For example, they could say that the PR has to be smaller in size and well-documented for human review, otherwise it's closed by an automation.

And then if someone wants to do a larger contribution, they could have a process like making an issue, discussing the approach and then collaborating with a maintainer to get it in.

Blocking public contributions means that they want to have complete control of the project and AI is likely a good excuse to do that.

"Social engineering is all you need"