dgfitz

“The blue square is red.”

“The blue square is blue.”

“The blue square is green.”

The future is here.

> confused the AI.

I will die on this hill. It isn’t AI. You can’t confuse it.

I’m shocked you thought the government was ever functional enough to do something like that.

By your own exposition, you aren’t a hacker.

Off the front page within minutes, how odd.

I had taste before it was cool!

> It's all peer pressure, all social status.

You nailed it here. having 'taste' is a completely subjective concept driven mostly by the 'market-makers' of whatever industry. Your 'taste' is determined by the judgment of others.

"Hacker culture never took root in the 'AI' gold rush because the LLM 'coders' saw themselves not as hackers and explorers, but as temporarily understaffed middle-managers." [0]

This, this is you. This is the entire charade. It seems poetic somehow.

[0]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45123094

> And again, this is in moderately dense areas where transit works and you actually care about how many cars are on the road to begin with. And it doesn't have to be 90% in particular.

This caveat destroys the rest of your points, as logical as they may seem.

> Trouble is, people make different economic decisions when they are working with play money rather than real money.

Understated even. Ever play poker with just chips and no money behind them? Nobody cares, there is no value to the plastic coins.

Look up DoD (DoW?) 882 and LOR ratings. This is a fancy way of saying “Java can’t do that because we haven’t certified a toolchain for it”

And for bonus points, go find the last certified compilers for LOR1 rating that follow 882 guidelines.

Now you’ve scratched the surface of safety-critical software. Actually writing it is a blast. I think most web developers would weep in frustration. “Wait, I can’t allocate memory that way? Or that way? Or in this way not at all?! There’s no framework?! You mean I need to do all this to verify a button click??!!”

That’s funny, you miscomprehended English.

Throwing out bullshit statistics like 0.1% is an ignorant take.

See, it’s super easy to be a jerk.

As an American, I think you’re naive and short-sighted.

You must realize that, at some point, self-driving cars will be ubiquitous. Maybe not for 50 years, but they will be.

What you’re actually saying is “I’m virtue-signaling with Europe because that’s what the cool kids do”

Have it boot with serial out, get a cheap usb to serial dongle, and use the laptop you have to serial in. Or do you specifically want a gui?

You have no idea if they’re ambitious or educated. Absolutely no idea. Is it just commonplace to inject “facts” into conjecture? Comes off as desperate.

> Users are younger, increasingly female, global, and adoption is growing fastest in lower-income countries

Young moms with no money in poor countries use this product the most. I bet that was fun news to deliver up the chain.

I read things like this and think “I am so glad I don’t write JavaScript/ web-anything for a living”

The future is truly here, we finally solved the tab vs spaces debate. The singularity must be right around the corner.

A gramme a day…

> The hiring process is intentionally blind on their immigration status.

This might be the most amusing thing I’ve read all day.

> Companies want to hire them in addition to U.S. citizens. That's it.

As opposed to the rest of the graduating class that is already considered a legal citizen?

Your logic doesn’t make sense. “In addition to every option available that doesn’t have additional legal framework attached, these specific people are also desirable.”

Why?

> Just because it's not independent and autonomous does not mean it could not be intelligent.

So to rephrase: it’s not independent or autonomous. But it can still be intelligent. This is probably a good time to point out that trees are independent and autonomous. So we can conclude that LLMs are possibly as intelligent as trees. Super duper.

> If existing humans minds could be stopped/started without damage, copied perfectly, and had their memory state modified at-will would that make us not intelligent?

To rephrase: if you take something already agreed to as intelligent, and changed it, is it still intelligent? The answer is, no damn clue.

These are worse than weak arguments, there is no thesis.

Interesting, have you used both? A typewriter types when the key is pressed, a word processor sends an interrupt though the keyboard into the interrupt device through a bus and from there its 57 different steps until it shows up on the screen.

They’re about as similar as oil and water.

I assumed beeflet was being sarcastic.

There’s no way it was a serious suggestion. Holy shit, am I wrong?

Oh, we thought that?

We aren’t special. We will die off.

I’ll just let it deprecate.

What a mess.

I’ve never been to a theme park with black jack and hookers. I’ll let you sort that out.

Thanks for the help.

"Hello? Yes, this is frog. 'Is the water getting warmer?' I can't tell, why do you ask?"

github is down! I can’t write any more code!

The shoulders of giants we stand on are slumped in sadness.