Relevant to some extent it dictate our approach. When human does lying or cheating, certain tool can be deployed (social shame, ostracise) that cannot be effective towards LLM.
714 karma · joined December 21, 2021
Not being pedantic, but this is not "vibe-coding", as other commenter and blog post means it at least. Parent emphasize lack of work, polish, revisions:
> They don't care about the code they push. They generate, prune, generate, prune in 10kloc increments. They're apathetic to others who might need to use this code and expect some kind of consistent architecture/interface.
> This isn't to say all LLM users don't care about their work, but that there are far more people who are happy to push slop and take credit than the reverse.
Most likely too late for edit, but Jarred is who work for Anthropic, not Andrew.
This. Something I expect any person who think they are "engineer" to understand without thinking.
Some system have GNU, some BSD.
> at least trivial to install
Then same for `just`, package manager have it.
More likely to end up in turf war unless exist legible means to transition leadership. Some members will stick with old leader for various reason, some will push for new, some will be unawares and courted to choose their side. Person in leadership does not most likely give it up quietly and immediately.
> Versions 5.2.12, 5.4.3 and later have been signed with Jia Tan's OpenPGP key . The older releases have been signed with Lasse Collin's OpenPGP key .
It must be assume that before acquiring that privilege, they also contributed code to project. Probably most was to establish respectable record. Still could be malicious code going back someways.
> Thought AI companies farming copyrighted work on the other hand, that's a different story.
All post on Stack Overflow are still copyright of respective posters. They are offered publicly under Creative Commons license that require attribution.
Side benefit to overwhelming mindshare many people expect/require the other forge to have the Github feature: being different counts as negative. This reinforces.
Have not read the book, but the Four Teams list obviously describe real roles. But that doesn't mean organization must or should go out and immeiately partition their teams according this scheme. The value is to recognize that these roles exist and are probably performed somewhere by someone in some way or another in the organization. (But perhaps your org is too small to have much of Platform component, say, so it's just Alice who update CI every N week on as-needed basis.) And to use that knowledge to understand the overall process and where there may be problems or future problems.
There is an older better experiment by Benjamin Libet of this. The participant is directed to choose whether to press a single button, and watching a fast clock display to report the instant the decision is taken. The measurement and comparison of the brain activity clearly shows deciding to press, many milliseconds before the participant experiences deciding. Therefore, the participant does not have free will, is it not so? Since the decision is done before it is known to be done by the subject.
The retort is simple. The leap to "no free will" ignores that consciousness itself is a processing: the brain component that reconciles the internal input and renders it for externality takes time to do its work. The decision is still made by the participant. The subjective experience is behind the objective activation simply just as the signal for a television screen must pass through the wire before it is translated for pixels.