dmortin

Misleading title, someone should fix it. 98% of legacy code. Check out the full title of the article.

In capitalism companies do things what is good for the company.

You can try convincing them that doing the same job in 2hrs is better for the company but they may not listen.

Like in outsourcing when they say the Indian worker does the same job for a much smaller salary and they don't care about the quality of the code they produce only about hitting the milestones. If the code is bad then they hire some other cheap outsourced workers to fix it, etc.

The market does not reward good code, the market rewards low price and speed of delivery.

Obviously, if one asks about privacy and surveillance then he must plan something bad. Honest people have nothing to hide from Google and the government, right?

I wonder if they search for the same thing on the same computer in a private window or in an other not logged in browser does google still connect these searches to their main accounts.

Or does it happen only if you search for things logged in?

But then you are the same place. You don't change the clock, but you change the schedule, so, the time is the same, but, for example, schedule starts at 7am instead of 8am. People have to get up an hour earlier.

You can't have a fixed schedule, because the time of daylight changes during the year.

Or he just wanted to test if it works for clicks and engagements, and he got a result he didn't anticipate.

It will be chaos if people let AI agents run amok with their accounts.

Many more such cases are to come.

Does archive.is have problems? I tried this article with it and it didn't work:

https://www.wsj.com/business/entrepreneurship/burned-out-and...

Error: Invalid InterceptionId.

It's different by location. E. g. in Europe many people uses Facebook, many under 40s too.

In the US: 25–34 years: Around 25.7% to 25.9% (the largest single demographic group).

Maybe the robot won't take all the jobs, but they may take many jobs. Those masses won't be happy if some of the people will still have jobs.

And BTW, 75 year olds doing physical labor is not an ideal state of things unless that plumber really wants to work at 75.

In the future the product itself will be implemented by the end of the meeting.

Judging from the rate of improvement in AIs it will happen gradually over the next few years.

Comparing AIs of a few years ago to the ones today there is a good chance they will improve enormously.

Some humans will always be needed for handholding, but not as many as employed today to churn out run of the mill code.

> Software Engineering as science will be largely dedicated to AI development

Which will require fewer people.

Simple software engineers who work on CRUDs and are not PhD-s and stuff will go away. Most of software is like this. The few percent who work on kernels, AI models, etc. will still have work. The rest won't, or rather much less people will be needed to simply use AI to do that work.

Isn't it expensive, though? If you let it perform gui or web tasks for you using vision, I'd think it consumes lots of tokens.

Do you actually get any signifcant AI traffic today?

Nothing, but the article is about American AI, so using Chinese models by American companies can be risky. And it's risky for the Chinese to use American models.

So every country or block needs to run their own models to avoid opening a security hole for other countries.

Are open weights models secure? E.g. if a Chinese model is run by an American provider then can it still do bad things, like inserting backdoors into generated code or accessing external URLs (if browsing is enabled) to send info to them?

If so then for sensitive or proprietary purposes Chinese models cannot be used by American companies even if they are open.

There should be at least some correlation. When building the model they give more weight to some pages (e.g. Wikipedia) which have bigger trust (pagerank?). And when they provide links in answers, those matches are listed first which have better pagerank for the query.

So if it sources something in Wikipedia, it is more likely to provide Wikipedia as a trusted source for it.

The problem is when an answer is hallucinated, false, it may provide a source for it which contains the invalid info.

Secifically in Google AI Overview I always see links to sites where the information is sourced from.

Or at least some of the sites, if the same info is sourced from 100 pages then it only shows 2 or 3, maybe the ones with the biggest PageRanks.

Is his code maintainable, though? Or is it just a pile of code which happens to work? What if he wants to change something? Does he generate again the whole thing from scratch? Or does he tell Claude to make the changes and doesn't even know when something breaks when a new thing is added? (Assuming the software is complex, having multiple non trivial features.)

That's exactly what PageRank is about, invented by Google.

The strength of the sources are not a question of quantity. A hundred obscure blog post have not the same strength as one wikipedia link, because the latter is more trustworthy. There could be some indication beside the info showing the strength of the sources (how many major trustworthy sources support it, etc.).

There should be some warning if some "fact" is only supported by one or very few obscure sources.

The strength of the sources should be clearly indicated in the answers to help users gauge how trustworthy the info is.

Was it inability or simply calculation? He made a livelihood out of making up stories about ancient aliens. He was financially motivated to keep telling his stories.

What bothers me is that even some tech forums use Facebook groups and stuff, hiding the information in non-searchable silos.

Why can't at least tech people use only traditional forums which are easily searchable, readable without login, etc?

> Content can’t be free if you want it to be of any quality.

There are lots smaller local websites which can produce useful local content because of ad support. Those may not have enough subscribers to continue behind a paywall.

> Luckily, there's tons of information on the web provided not by commercial entities but by volunteers

The question is: is there content which is useful, but not provided by volunteers? We see more and more content behind paywalls, and it is a loss for many people who can't pay, because they won't be able to access the same content for free supported by ads.

So the result is poor people are going to lose access to certain contents, while well to do people will still have access.

" it will be interesting to see what the business model for Anthropic will be if I can run a solid code generation model on my local machine "

Most people won't bother with buying powerful hardware for this, they will keep using SAAS solutions, so Anthropic can be in trouble if cheaper SAAS solutions come out.

> but unless you're deeply, deeply into repetitive religious tracts of 600 years ago, most of the collection is more of a curiosity than a valuable resource to modern scholars.

It's an abbey, so they are probably into religious tracts and it has cultural and sentimental value to them. E.g. if it has a Bible from the 13th century then it's worth preserving even if it's just the usual stuff.

Unless that typo was inserted intentionally to make it look like it was written by a fallible human.