Spending time upfront designing is sound advice for any software engineer. LLMs can also save time here as well, if you're disciplined enough to not proceed until the design is polished.
Given how many security vulnerabilities SOTA models are able to catch in software we've considered some of the most mature ever written, they can most certainly be more reliable in certain contexts and when used certain ways.
I think an isolated and ambiguous sentence like the one you provided with zero surrounding context is perhaps a bad example. English can be very ambiguous. It is also possible to write unambiguous English, as far as deciphering intention is concerned. I think LLMs have shown us just how far English can go as a medium to get quite good results. And as others mention, there are other tools, like compiled programming languages and static analysis tools and unit tests, that can do more of the heavy lifting on our behalf.
Nice work. I unfortunately wouldn't be able to use it for programming because I find the parenthesis and square bracket look too similar, and it would definitely increase extraneous cognitive load.
I think the OP was talking about robotics specifically and not tasks like the one you described. Nobody can argue that for tasks like your binder replacement cost savings are enormous.
I agree with this to a large extent. This new technology is lowering the barrier to meaningfully work with existing tools. It's increasing the magnitude of jostling that may very well bump us out of a local maximum sooner than before.
I would argue that all of the problems we have to solve are novel and tricky. The rest we've already solved but constantly reinvent (not novel) or already solved and just need to piece together like Legos (not tricky).
Forgive my ignorance, since I am only superficially knowledgeable about this, but how are you certain that it "completely forgot" as opposed to the knowledge still being encoded but 800 inferences was not enough to probabilistically trigger it? Like hunting down a race condition that happens rarely enough that it may not surface in 800 runs of the program.
Yeah, I pay for youtube so I don't have to watch ads, but then youtube creators at some point all decided to jump on the bandwagon of interleaving ads into their content. Many are kind enough to make it easy to jump ahead to when the ad is over, but man, I would much prefer they set up a patreon or just let me pay them through youtube's own UI. Incredibly annoying.
That is the task they are constructed to perform, but that's just an output, not the inner workings of what's happening to arrive at that next token. You can give a human the same constrained task, but the output alone doesn't a human mind make.
I should clarify that when I wrote plausible I meant the societal aspects you touched on in your second point. As long as we are human, we will continue to experience our imperfection and continue to be prone to giving in to our base desires. And of course one group's culture shapes their ethics differently than another group's. Ethics is, after all, arbitrary. But one could still look at Star Trek and imagine a society where people's needs are met better than they are now, where we have systems in place to prevent a complete erosion of society better than we have now, where the basic principle of not exploiting others for personal gain is taught better than we teach it now, where we don't tolerate those that violate that principle.
You will still have hate. People will still kill. But one could look at Star Trek and imagine it's plausible to live in a society that doesn't tolerate school shootings or the systemic breakdowns that led to that.
Star Trek is a plausible future I'd like to live in. It depends entirely on education, cultural values, and ethics. It's a future worth striving for, real or not.
I share your enthusiasm for this. Creating a map of the most influential research across all the fields to identify the highest priority work, any work replicating that work or validating that work by building from it would be a good start. Ideally funded by governments, but institutions, companies, and individuals could put up bounties for replicating particular research.
Can you elaborate? In the spirit of the rules of HN I'm trying to assume good faith and trying to conjure the strongest plausible interpretation of what you wrote, but I'm drawing a blank.