elicksaur

That’s fair. I think the difference here is that the entire context needed is provided.

If you’re having to explain an existing problem with edge cases, then sure, the context window needs the edge cases defined as well.

“Prompting” is kind of a myth honestly.

Think about it, how much marginal influence does it really have if you say OP’s version vs a fully formed sentence? The keywords are what gets it in the area.

“Untreatable” disease.

Yet somehow the AI knows a treatment?

Exactly.

We really need a human-human dispute where human A used AI to make a work and claims copyright and human B disputes the copyright. That’s the kind of case that would get into the standards for necessary human input.

Not sure if anything like that’s been filed yet.

If I lend you my camera to take pictures you choose, do I hold the copyright because I own the camera?

(No)

Topic seems like a bait for your typical HN user.

If you dislike managers generally, why would you think Amazon is firing them for all the reasons you personally dislike them as a class?

What is Amazon’s actual motive here?

Yes cost of living does matter.

But I’ve also never met or heard of a $200k household that I wouldn’t consider “well off”. Typically, stories about these “not well off” yet “over double the median income” households are budgeting issues.

People don’t like to admit that because most people blame external forces instead of evaluating their own choices.

I don’t disagree. I do think there will be a tendency to say, “We can do X using AI.” When X can happen, but it isn’t guaranteed to happen by the system.

Here, it doesn’t sound like the features promised were truly demo-able, and when they were they were “not working properly up to a third of the time”.

Having a random CRUD MVP that is 2/3rds done is different than having a SOTA LLM implementation only being 2/3rds reliable. It is a vastly different problem to get from there to the finish line.

But I think marketing types would be equally likely to make promises in both scenarios.

See this as one of the major selling points.

…but I haven’t joined a new company since LLMs were a thing. How often is this use case necessary to justify $Ts in investment?

Very whataboutism. Do you understanding why the person is making this argument? Or is everything just postmodern deconstructionism?

Everything has some imperfection, so LLMs are just fine... Completely missing the totally valid criticisms people have of the systems.

>And people were saying

Source? A quote? Or are we just making up historical strawmen to win arguments against?

Yes, if you add problematic facts to a situation, the situation becomes discriminatory.

Nothing in the article suggests calling a candidate cupcake, etc. The subjects of the article are super understanding - allowing people to continue in an interview process despite seeming to not know the native language.

What is the motivation for making up wacky hypos to discredit the relatively trivial suggestions in the newsletter?

You’re probably just forgetting.

Been a thing since 1986 https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_I-9

Because you can tell?

What is the purpose of this argument other than to justify deceit?

Someone willing to lie to this extent can be assumed to not actually be as productive. Any “productivity” metric they hit can also be assumed to be faked or gamed while on the job.

But, narrowing to just “productivity-wise” is moving the goalposts. I want to work with honest people full stop.

.

It gives itself a 60% Safe rating.

They don’t because their comment in this thread took more than 30 seconds to write ;)

I’ve tried to use LLMs for programming. They always fail in extremely predictable ways for the text prediction programs that they are.

The phrasing you use is all marketing. When people share actual chat threads that they claim helped them, they always have the same issues I observe in my own use.

I reject the implication that the problem is me or other people who are critical of AI here. I’ve given it a fair shake. Why is user error or literally here a “self-limiting belief” always implied or stated? Almost like I can’t use AI because of a moral failing? C’mon…

It honestly sounds like a cult where I don’t know how to read the tea leaves and believe enough. I’ll pass happily and be so self limited :)

When AI is actually useful, there won’t be a debate.

No, they don’t read your mail either.

It gets collected and tallied by an intern who probably isn’t even paid. The tally is then reported for the day to an actual staffer who may or may not bother mentioning it to the rep that day.

Calling your representative is as effective as my comment here.

When I read stories about people 10x’ing their productivity with AI, I interpret them as having the same vibe as these “solvers”.

How does Microsoft justify a $3T valuation in a world where Linux is free?

Why does someone always have to chime in “But humans can be bad, too!” We shouldn’t advertise for these companies by denigrating other people.

The app economy sucks.

No.

People pasting full llm outputs into help forum responses has been one of the most annoying trends.

If you can’t do more than what a llm would say, you’re already replaceable.

“Already 5xs”

Even AI marketing doesn’t claim this. Totally baseless claim given how many people report negative experiences trying to use AI.

I’m not familiar with the subject matter, but given your description, I wouldn’t really be impressed by anyone suggesting it. It just sounds like a very plausible “What if” alternative.

On the level of suggesting suitable alternative ingredients in fruit salad.

We should really stop insulting the intelligence of people to sell AI.

Unless you are talking about people who are actual licensed engineers, this is a distinction without a difference.

Thing is, I’ve never met someone in software with a professional license.

The crypto token “liquidity” feels off.

Do accredited investor regulations not apply to this market? Is the crypto token a registered security since it apparently represents stock in a company?

I’m turned off because it sounds like the company wants to play fast and loose with money in a way that is more than just “move fast and break things”.