dontlikeyoueith

Cute straw man.

You must be a CEO.

I'm not arguing anything. I'm observing reality. You're the one who is desperate to rationalize it.

Yes, that is in fact their revealed preference.

Did you have a point?

And there's the same empty headed certainty, extrapolating a sigmoid into an exponential.

In practice, yes, though they wouldn't think of it that way because that's the kind of people they surround themselves with, so it's what they think human interaction is actually like.

> And realistically in a year, there won't be any people who can keep up.

I've heard the same claim every year since GPT-3.

It's still just as irrational as it was then.

I bet you believe in wizards and magic fairy dust too.

It rubs the data on its skin or else it gets the prompt again!

> Let's actually be generous and assume that all parties involved did the math and some due diligence and are not just idiots

Economic history strongly suggests this would be a bad assumption.

> I don't see a fundamental barrier to it

Neither did the people expecting fusion power and flying cars to come quickly.

We have just as much evidence that fusion power is possible as we do that human level intelligence is possible. Same with small vehicle flight for that matter.

None of that makes any of these things feasible.

> Still the fact that LLMs can do well in things like the maths olympiad have me thinking there must be some way to tweak this to be more brain like

That's because you, as you admit in the next sentence, have almost no understanding of how they work.

Your reasoning is on the same level as someone in the 1950s thinking ubiquitous flying cars are just a few years away. Or fusion power, for that matter.

In your defense, that seems to be about the average level of engagement with this technology, even on this website.

> That aside: I still think complaining about "hallucination" is a pretty big "tell".

And I think that sentence is a pretty big tell, so ...

> if people like Musk or Bezos suddenly popped out of existence; their lives simply don't impact mine. If anything, their existence serves as an inspiration for others to try for big dreams. Many of those will fail, some will succeed marginally, and a very small number will join the ranks of the ultra-rich - because they managed to provide a service that millions of people were willing to give them money.

Sure, you're not indoctrinated. Keep telling yourself that.

Depends on your problem space too.

Calendar app for local social clubs? Ship it and fix it later.

B2B payments software that triggers funds transfers? JFC I hope you PIP people for that.

You're misunderstanding.

I'm not saying Betelgeuse would be a type Ia. Betelgeuse will be a Type II supernova.

I'm wondering whether Type II supernovae with smaller partners later become Type Ia once the larger partner explodes and becomes a white dwarf. The former smaller partner then becomes the relatively larger partner that loses mass to the remnant.

Are you trying to spin 80% yoy churn as good?

Did you get your MBA from the back of a mail order catalog?

Wouldn't all Type Ia supernova be examples of at least one possible end state of such an event?

https://science.nasa.gov/resource/type-ia-supernova/

The larger star explodes first in a Type II supernova, becomes a Type Ia.

Because readers at the time didn't struggle with it as they do now.

> Thus it is a local maximum, so any small change produces a worse result

I have ML engineer brain, so to me any small change from a local maximum is an IMPROVEMENT (because we try to minimize loss functions).

Your reading makes more sense.

Because it's newer and trendy and that's important for programmers learning their first tool that solves an old problem.

Whether it should be important is another question, but it's a simple fact that it is.

> generally consider tailwind to be a minimal local maximum

I feel like I've been nerd sniped trying to figure out what you mean by this.

> Dickens' sentence structure was just as difficult to parse then as it is now

This is nonsense. Dickens was an enormously popular writer with common readers.

> I just wanted to say LLMs with MCP are definitely good enough for almost every use case you can come up with as long as you can provide them with high quality context.

This just shows you lack imagination.

I have a lot of use cases that they are not good enough for.

Which federal law exactly requires states to spend money to enforce federal law?

I'll give you a hint: none.

> You have to focus on the actual products and services which you provide and do a good job at it, not chase after any and every person with an opinion.

That's a nice straw man you have there.

> Courts don’t make decisions on whether executive rules are told or bad, serve consumers or not

This is just an obvious lie.

They're not supposed to, but they obviously do. Usually against common citizens' interest.

> If they're not customers it doesn't matter at all what they think

That kind of thinking is how you never get new customers and eventually fail as a business.

> Current job "permits" Claude usage, but does not pay for it.

That seems like the worst of all worlds from their perspective.

By not paying for it they introduce a massive security concern.

And if the parents are on valid non-resident visas? Suddenly the child has no status?

Moreover, there is literally no mechanism to prove that your parents are citizens.

Millions of citizens will be at the whim of whatever racist thug decides to hurt them that day.

Welcome to Fascist America.

> Maybe a good case, that i've used a lot, is using "spreadsheet inputs" and teaching the LLM to produce test cases/code based on the spreadsheet data (that I received from elsewhere)

This seems weird to me instead of just including the spreadsheet as a test fixture.

> in particular the yappy one who was publicly inflammatory on Christmas Day.

Well that's not a short list at X.