dartos

> I’m not giving myself any kind of independent treatment based on the output of an LLM. But it provides possibilities that doctors may have overlooked.

You might not, but others would.

I mean people take random advice from the internet all the time. IIRC There was a whole craze about ingesting or injecting bleach to “cure autism” or something.

Random advice from an LLM is no better.

Even worse, maybe, since there’s not going to be a bunch of negative replies to whatever the LLM outputs.

> Is that not a significant issue?

No more an issue than normal.

I don’t see how oauth makes it easier to phish.

The attacker would need to have a fake or compromised site send the victim to another fake site.

Rust, IMO is a noisy language. So not surprising it took more lines.

Having to handle every case of every branch also probably balloons line count.

Efficient LOC is not a goal of rust at all anyway.

Depends who was in the meeting.

So glad most people in the “real world” are experts in health an epidemiology.

Taking the same stance as most people has never been wrong.

Did you reply to the wrong comment?

I don’t see the connection, sorry.

I think the root issue is that the word “love” in English has far too many meanings.

When you “love” a company, it’s not the same as “loving” your wife.

And “loving” your wife is different, still, than “loving” your brother or best friend.

Same here.

> I think parent comment is suggesting it's dangerous for you to publicly tell others that ChatGPT is better than their doctor at diagnosing them (however little of your doctor's attention you get) regardless of whether there is or isn't truth to it in certain cases.

Yes, exactly.

Doubly so when one has no medical expertise.

OC started their comment with

> Unpopular take: ChatGPT is better at diagnosing medical problems than a doctor who does a cursory evaluation.

Which is dangerous and harmful advice.

No reason to muddy the waters.

I don’t live in a large city.

I’d bet that, if you live in the US, there are options for doctors within a 1-2 hour drive from you.

I drive an hour and a half to see an independent dentist I trust.

I’m lucky enough to have a decent doctor only 20 mins away.

Either way, I’d never trust my health to an automated system. Especially one which can’t be held accountable in any way.

It’s not just unpopular, it’s dangerous.

Please people, for the love of life and health, don’t trust your medical issues to LLMs.

You’re lucky it was just mono.

Maybe find a better doctor if you feel you’re not getting good enough care…

I’d suggest changing that name. In a world where tech layoffs are super common “Stack Ranking” has an extremely negative connotation.

Every day it becomes clearer and clearer that LLMs are, mainly, a huge step forward in search algorithms.

Would you want to be reliant on American companies right now?

I’m not saying every C compiler is always perfectly predictable, but by virtue of it being a simpler language it should Always be more predictable than rust, barring arcane optimizations.

I do agree that if someone actually cares about the assembly they should be writing it by hand.

Is the elixir+erlang ecosystem less stable than clojure’s

> Projects are a lot harder when trips to the hardware store take months rather than days

How long do you think it takes to plan a trip to the moon?

> I think Starship makes colonies a whole lot more viable

Why?

Two reasons I can think of off the top of my head.

The assembly outputted from C compilers tend to be more predictable by virtue of C being a simpler language. This matters when writing drivers for exotic hardware.

Sometimes to do things like make a performant ring buffer (without vec dequeue) you need to use unsafe rust anyway, which IMO is just taking the complexity of the rust language without any of the benefit.

I don’t really think there’s any benefit to using C++ over rust except that it interfaces with C code more easily. IMO that’s not a deal maker.

No idea, but my gut says obviously.

Uhh

> The problem is AI current best use case is creative work, art, music, programming

By “best” do you mean “marketable?”

Seems weird to see a bunch of creatives and creative professionals “disdain” a tool and still say it’s “best” for them…

That’s a good point. It’d be one of the few truths he publicly states.

> true advancement is always energy management

Idk about that, but yeah I agree AI has got a good 3-5 years left in its hype run.

I remember when all PCs were going to be little hdmi devices which would stream a VM do any device you plug it in to.

Yes there is a better way to develop tech without knowingly sending a group of people to their deaths.

We could throw 100s of billions of dollars into it.

But it’s harder to sell to investors than language models

Tbf LLMs are pretty incredible accessibility tools.

Speech to text using whisper is almost perfect.

I once worked with someone who wasn’t fluent in English, but could read it really well. He had whisper running during meetings because he could read at the speed it translated, but couldn’t keep up with our casual speech.

Honestly, we didn’t even notice he was using speech to text to keep up with us for a few weeks. We only noticed because of screen sharing.

I imagine that would be a big social boon for deaf people as well.

All that to say, it’s not like there was _no_ good done with all that money.

No, the whole point of apps is data collection, background tasks (when the device is closed) and push notifications.

At this point I’d settle for the party that at least pretends to follow the rules they make.

It’s better for my mental

As a functional fan, CLOS is amazing.

Far from it!

But he is by far the most successful one.

At the very least the loudest successful one.