WhyOhWhyQ

Interesting. The Wikipedia page for Times New Roman has a pretty fun blurb printed in the newspaper when they first implemented it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Times_New_Roman?st_source=ai_m...

Is Calibri actually more accessible? Every step of this story seems pointless and fake.

I disagree about your final conclusion. To add another aphorism to your collection, "The pendulum always swings back".

"I also think it takes a lot of the fun out of the whole thing."

Agreed. It's like replacing a complex and fulfilling journey with drugs.

Everyone on this website has thoughts on LLM's, not just you.

LLM's are heavily biased by leading questions, which is not a good property in a doctor. They also tend to respond in a way to please the prompter, which might be a frustrated parent, not in a way which is impartial and based on good medical practices. They frequently speak with high confidence and low accuracy.

I always state when I use AI because I view it to be deceptive otherwise. Since sometimes I'll be using AI when it seems appropriate, and certainly only in direct limited ways, this rule seems like it would force me to be dishonest.

For instance, what's wrong with the following: "Here's interesting point about foo topic. Here's another interesting point about bar topic; I learned of this through use of Gemini. Here's another interesting point about baz topic."

Is this banned also? I'm only sharing it because I feel that I've vetted whatever I learned and find it worth sharing regardless of the source.

Lmao we're using webassembly to run 7b parameter llms on contact lenses in the future. What a world it'll be.

I think it's morally wrong to trust a child's well-being to an LLM over a trained medical professional, and I feel strongly enough about this to express that here.

"AI always thinks and learns faster than us, this is undeniable now. "

Sort of a nitpick, because what's written is true in some contexts (I get it, web development is like the ideal context for AI for a variety of reasons), but this is currently totally false in lots of knowledge domains very much like programming. AI is currently terrible at the math niches I'm interested in. Since there's no economic incentive to improve things and no mountain of literature on those topics, unless AI really becomes self-learning / improves in some real way, I don't see the situation ever changing. AI has consistently gotten effectively a 0% score on my personal benchmarks for those topics.

It's just aggravating to see someone write "totally undeniable" when the thing is trivially denied.

Well that took a surprising turn. (1) Friendly dunking on someone named todepond. (2) Interesting ideas about xhtml... looks like I'm going to learn something here. (3) Ideological conflict.

Is there a backstory here? Or is this just random venting?

Anyways, I reject the idea that loose programming is more "tolerant" in any sociological manner.

Humans design the world to our benefit, horses do not.

This is really cool and inspirational! Looking forward to studying this closer!

I personally never found Microsoft software anything but shoddy: Microsoft word, internet explorer, power shell, outlook, powerpoint... these all make me shudder... I'll give them visual studio, that one is pretty good. I think Excel is fine. Skype was okay I guess. Anyway, I think the shoddiness can't really be the actual threat to Microsoft given their track record.

Seems like holding the S&P bag never fails.

This comment is missing the point. The real goal of all this is not to amaze. It's to create better software. Let's graduate past the amazement phase into the realism phase as soon as possible. What parts of my project is the LLM for? That is the real question worth asking.

That's a good point.

One simulator would just "run the laws of our universe" (I don't care to make that precise, since presently it's a trivial statement, but hopefully it's clear that I mean to distinguish it from running a computer), but then that sort of trivializes the idea of "simulation".

Maybe it's possible for us to create a sub-universe of ours with a quantum computer such that we view the entities as a part of our universe, but the entities cannot be aware of us. (This is the insects at the surface of a pond idea, unaware of the dimension above or below.)

Please explain how to simulate a universe which is indistinguishable from a simulation but which is not accurate according to the rules of the article.

A well paid human expert can find lots of uses of LLMs. I'm still not convinced that humans will ever be totally replaced, and what work will look like is human experts using LLMs as another tool in the toolbox, just like how an engineer would have used a slide rule or mechanical calculator back in the day. The kind of work they're good at doesn't cover the full range of necessary engineering tasks, but they do open up new avenues. For instance, yesterday I was able to get the basic gist of three solutions for a pretty complex task in about an hour. The result of that was me seeing that two of them were unlikely to work for what I'm doing, so that now I can invest actual effort in the third solution.

The idea that the universe is a simulation proceeds as follows:

(1) Person notices that computer simulations are getting increasingly powerful. Maybe we will be able to simulate something like the universe one day which will have life in it.

(2) If simulating the universe is so easy and inevitable, what are the odds that we are at the top level?

The idea in the article would refute the inductive step.

Probably a cliche, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

For cinema, I guess that's all folks.

I'm halfway through Crenshaw!

"with all due respect, every word you wrote is wrong. michael jordan was and still is biggest a-hole that every teammate hated - the best to ever do it." Bronnie James is in the NBA... ... .. . Michael Jordan was terrible at baseball and got to sign up for a real chance at the MLB.

"most celebrated are ones pulling 7-8-figure salaries no one has ever heard of"

You've got a direct contradiction in the span of one sentence... I've directly worked with people like the ones you're referring to and most of them were frauds.

"I know several harvard grads who are about as popular as wahington generals"

You didn't understand what I wrote. It's all about the dynamics of the environment. Academia is as much about fitting in just as much as any other place.

Where I went to school the coach distributed chewing tobacco to players he liked and bullied the nerds. The black kid who was extremely athletic got bullied and switched schools. The starting pitcher was an idiot who drove a big truck, and was not especially talented.

That's how it works for every organization. Not just corporate America. Want to play on the varsity baseball team? Better be popular with the coaches and other players. Otherwise you're on the bench keeping score. Want to go to Harvard grad school? Better be the right kind of popular. Want to be celebrated in machine learning? Better be popular by doing shallow work on lots of projects. The whole world is a scam, and the scammers always win.

It is a large amount of luck, obviously. You didn't hard-work your way out of brain damage at birth. You didn't hard-work your way into your geographic location which gave you access to the resources that lead you to where you are, which are unavailable most places in the world. You didn't hard-work your way out of avoiding a draft for a war where you got killed at age 18.

I also would like to see AI end up dying off except for a few niches, but I find myself using it more and more. It is not a productivity boost in the way I end up using it, interestingly. Actually I think it is actively harming my continued development, though that could just be me getting older, or perhaps massive anxiety from joblessness. Still, I can't help but ask it if everything I do is a good idea. Even in the SO era I would try to find a reference for every little choice I made to determine if it was a good or bad practice.

You're out of luck because I am willing to pay at least $2.

I actually like claude code, but that was always a risky thing to say (actually I recall him saying their software is 90% AI produced) considering their cli tool is literally infested with bugs. (Or it least it was last time I used it heavily. Maybe they've improved it since.)

I was trying to make it automatically randomly choose between the normal speed and twice speed after a long time. I think appending

.fast(chooseCycles(1, 2).slow(128))

at the very end does it. But I'm not actually sure. Would a strudel user mind informing me how this is done? Also, I was hoping to make it automatically shift the key, but I couldn't figure it out.