andy_ppp

I downloaded Anti Gravity to give it a try and it wanted me to sign into Google to even edit a file. Forget it.

Looking at how a lot of modern cars are just made of glued together plastic (Mat Armstrong’s channel amongst others) I’m not at all surprised people are buying used models more regularly.

Can I have an M7 at the lower price with the old screen? Well honestly I might buy something else for AI then… is anyone in the PC world going to produce something with enough RAM + bandwidth to do fast inference on a reasonably large model?

Ghostty was using 2gb of ram the other day - I switched back to iTerm and it's now 200mb.

Don’t worry AI will tell us how to time travel, you can get your AMZN no problem or just a sports almanac from the future… infinite growth if you can travel into new dimensions :-/

I just can't believe the price of hardware these days, a 3090, a graphics card released in September 2020, can still be worth £1500 or more. Honestly everywhere is sold out below around £1800. Can you really trust them not to have been rinsed on eBay and have an extremely short usage - they are still around £1150 used there!

More likely socialising and long walks in nature slows cognitive decline - how do you control for this from the results to make the birdwatching part relevant?

We can probably find people saying the search space for Go is too large and that we'll never be able to do protein folding and if we can we'll never manage protein interactions and then well never manage to simulate a whole cell (tbc). I just think at some point these machines become smarter than us, if it's 2 years or 20 years the self improvement part will happen on both the hardware and software side. Judgement day is inevitable.

There are I imagine laws about protecting your customers data and not allowing apps and plugins to for example steal every connection people have on the platform. CA were not "hacking" Facebook they were using the platform as is and if that allowed these types of abuses the court clearly determined they had broken the law.

The politicians think they are part of a protected class with the billionaires and corrupt institutions with zero accountability.

The original paper title is catchy but it’s more like “positional encoding and attention and parallelism across attention heads are all you need…”

And it turns out you probably need massive compute, about 1/3 RLHF, all the worlds data and millions of people connecting their private data to the AI to learn from amongst other things :-/

Marketing brochure for a fine tuned Qwen (which they don't mention), the model discussed here is likely better. I would not trust these guys to deliver high quality solutions given a friend's experience there, but you do you I guess.

They still have the opportunity to remove it I guess?

Yeah you can’t even trust video any more, I’m not sure if there’s anything you can do with people who want to game the system.

Also Russia has been targeting Ukrainian digital infrastructure so they make these things fair game IMO.

Wow certainly in English this is incredibly accurate I tried to break it and it understood me perfectly!

I know it's slightly off topic but surely it must be easy by now to train a spell checker that doesn't annoy the crap out of everyone using it (looking at you here Apple)!

Idiomatic Elixir does this with pattern matching on function parameters so you end up with things like the following, raw if statements are discouraged because of this:

  def classify(:ok)
  def classify({:error, reason})
  def classify([first | rest])
  def classify(%{name: name, age: age}) when age >= 18
  def classify(%{name: name, age: age}) when age < 18

The model seems to be a person when it's advantageous and not a person when it isn't...

Thanks, it's hard to stay up to date. However, we are just meant to believe that the mathematicians were going about the proof independently in the exact same way as the machines did it. It seems like a very odd coincidence to me.

I've read that another mathematicians work potentially has been incorporated into the training data with the work done on the Navier-Stokes equations so we should likely asterisk this one. Still it's mad these systems are this good that mathematicians are now using them to see further and probably to check their own work and understanding.

So you're absolutely certain, say after a few hundred rounds of self improvement, that the AI will always obey human instructions? It doesn't even always do what you asked now...

Bioweapons and cyber attacks on other system - for example the banking system or suppose and AI hacked into important Russian systems that pushed them back in time to almost pre-computer society or an attack on Chinese systems that made it look like the US was moving nuclear weapons into Taiwan, the responses from these countries could be awful and dramatic. We can't control what they do to be honest, I believe once self improvement happens the AIs will build in their own circumvention that we humans cannot even understand. We barely understand what is happening now in terms of interpretability of neural networks on tiny problems I'm not sure alignment is even feasible at the scales of parameters we are talking about today let alone in the future.

We’re talking about run away self improvement of these systems, I’m not even convinced we’ve seen these systems invent a single new thing yet.

Have you seen anything produced by LLMs that is better than the best humans?

So predicting the next word given all humanity’s knowledge is surely going to max out at slightly less good (we probably can’t get perfect data) than the best human in any specific field. What test does the AI do to be able to understand it is improving? At some point it becomes impossible to know that the output is actually better right?

Ah a more direct way of funnelling government dollars to AI companies, knowing Trump it’s probably using Deepseek under the hood while he pockets the difference :-/

The output of LLMs, largely :-/

So what exactly are you proposing I do - just ignore the fantastic gains and great software that people are using day in day out?

Yes I agree we have all signed our own death warrants. But this does not just apply to coding.

Are you suggesting not using the tools? A kind of technical version of the Amish way of life?

I dunno I think my guidance and testing is very important and I make sure not to ship things with bugs and code that is really awful. I'm still just about necessary for now.

I don't really understand all the negativity - I've delivered amazing robust solutions at about 10x my previous rate I think and can make dramatic cross code changes on awful legacy code bases with ease. I just added some complex prev/next navigation across a load of detail pages pages that rely on the current search, a new PDF generation system that uses a queue and workers and absolutely tones of changes to a legacy ERP system that would be unworkable without AI.

Dealing with legacy messes I used to get frustrated and bored of making the improvements, now it's easy to clean up code bases and write loads of tests. I asked Astra to come up with a plan for Playwright testing the whole App, I have not built it yet but the flows suggested were fantastic as was the ephemeral database we plan to create for CI.

I built my friends portfolio website almost entirely vibe coded in 4 hours and it looks unbelievable, we added so much slickness (he's a designer) just prompting together. I used a CMS I had never used once before and it was so so easy to do without any of the usual need to read docs about everything.

I've done so much devops now I'm actually fairly confident that me and an AI can do anything you want in terms of deployment/infra and scaling from AWS to Terraform to whatever.

Anyway my main concern about this technology is not that it is crap at coding it's that the improvements in how it codes and thinks are absolutely dramatic which is extremely scary - it has come so far in a year I wonder what the next year will bring.