I hate articles that do this as well in the title. It's basically just a form of clickbait.
6,072 karma · joined August 13, 2020
> We conclude that while context files are useful for specifying non-standard coding practices, any attempts to improve performance should be rigorously evaluated before deployment.
The purpose of AGENTS.md is not to improve "coding performance" as the study looked at, it's to give an agent practical instructions that are useful to your specific workflow. For example you want it to use a certain format or specific tools for your project. This is stuff that can't be learned during training and must be loaded into the agent's context at the project level.
It didn't used to be this way. The line between HN and reddit is converging and now sometimes it's difficult to tell them apart.
you should probably be doing this discussion work along with Fable 5. It will give good feedback if you're working on the correct things.
> Come up with QA plan and have Codex Computer Use execute on it
QA plan should be part of the above "design + plan", not after it. The implementer needs to be able to fully test before publishing a PR. This is true whether humans or agents are writing the code.
> Manually spot check the final result (usually a sizable diff, thousands of lines, complete feature E2E, etc)
unfortunately this is not really scalable with amount of code agents can produce, so you need independent (fresh context) agent reviewers to help. Ideally they only escalate to a human when really stuck.
> I probably spend like $80 a day at least
at a small startup you should be on the $200/month plan(s).
Just glanced at it and it looks pretty good!
What can we do to make conversations around these incredibly exciting and important topics more constructive? HN is where I expect to read expert comments on these topics, has this style of conversation moved elsewhere?
This is an ungenerous take, and I think it's important to to recognize it's reasonable to support models that are both open and safe. How this would actually be achieved is unclear though. Dario is at least proposing a solution a solution, which is the model needs to pass safety testing. This is reasonable and I wouldn't conflate this with wanting to ban open weights.
I think the deeper problem might be though that once you have safe open-weight models, it will be much easier to make them unsafe. And to be specific, unsafe means proliferation of chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) weapons knowledge and similar information.
> Plan A is primarily a recommendation, not a prediction.
That sounds nothing like “religious fervor”
The fact that technology can increase existential risk for civilization is not fantasy. It’s a risk that should be reasonably discussed.
> It’s all just nonsensical hype
And he’s referring to completely real and reasonable warnings in anthropic blog posts about the exponential rate of AI development.
1. Those, like OP, that believe AI danger and disruption is all hype to boost valuations.
2. Those, like myself, that believe AI danger and disruption is very real and presents dilemmas (but also opportunities) for society, so we must tread carefully.
The first position is not logically consistent with reality. The danger is real: we have already seen hints about how this will impact everything from jobs to warfare to mental health. that danger does not increase valuation, in fact it does the opposite because of the need for government regulation.
5 miles in 23 seconds is 782 mph.
It seems like if the police actually looked at the Flock data it would have exonerated them?
> The goal of mathematical research is human understanding of mathematics, and so mathematics can only thrive in a community of human mathematicians. It is crucial to preserve this communal spirit. [0]
Terence Tao has also talked about the requirement for a mathematical proof: along with generation and formal verification, there is an important step of "proof digestion"
> understanding the essence of a solution, placing it in context with previous literature, summarizing and explaining it effectively, and gaining insights on other related problems and topics [1]
[0]: https://siliconreckoner.substack.com/p/the-leiden-declaratio...
This doesn't sound like being baffled by it. It sounds like they are trying to shake the students and say: "fine boo, but you need do something about it." You can't just wallow and complain about it. I mean you can but it's a path to failure.
What I meant by
> People seem unable to make up their mind if AI is very dangerous or is it not.
Is that the article says 2 contradictory things:
1. AI companies are misleading us when they say their tech is dangerous and people should be afraid.
2. AI is currently very dangerous and people should be afraid.
Anecdotally, people on the internet (including HN), seem unable to agree on whether AI is real or overblown "hype".
> trying to coerce people into using your product out of fear
is nonsense.
Everyone agrees that there are legitimate reasons to be fearful of this technology, this is not a fabrication, but we need to figure out how to proceed in a safe and constructive way.
What "coercion" is occurring here? Either you find the technology valuable and you want to pay for it, or you find it not useful (or worse harmful), and you do not want to pay for it.
Maybe another way of putting it, what do you think the frontier AI companies should do in this situation? It seems that being straightforward with the dangers is correct thing to do, and probably being overly cautious is prudent. You could go further and argue they should slow down or stop development, but that is something that the govt should impose, we should not expect or trust the companies to do this themselves. Ironically, in the Anthropic / Pentagon case, we have Anthropic trying to pump the brakes and put up guardrails while the govt wants to go full-steam ahead with autonomous warfare.
The other issue with slowing down / pausing development is it requires an unheard of level of agreement, even with companies in China, or else it will probably not be effective. You could argue this is not even possible at this point.