Those are completely deterministic systems, of bounded scope. They can be ~completely solved, in the sense that all possible inputs fall within the understood and always correctly handled bounds of the system's specifications.
There's no need for ongoing, consistent human verification at runtime. Any problems with the implementation can wait for a skilled human to do whatever research is necessary to develop the specific system understanding needed to fix it. This is really not a valid comparison.
Sure, but how many LLM streaming clients are out there?
Namespacing, sure. But is "We use gh:someguy/openai/llm-streaming-client to talk to the backend" (x50 similarly cumbersome names in any architecture discussion) really better than "We use Pegasus as our LLM streaming client"?
Engineers at Google are much less likely to be doing green-field generation of large amounts of code . It's much more incremental, carefully measured changes to mature, complex software stacks, and done within the Google ecosystem, which is heavily divergent from the OSS-focused world of startups, where most training data comes from
I feel like none of these discussions can ever go anywhere, if they don't start from a place of recognizing that "AI is a massive bubble" and "AI is a very interesting and useful technology that will continue to increase its impact" are not mutually exclusive statements
I think the OP meant something far simpler (and perhaps less interesting), which is that you simply cannot encounter key errors due to missing fields, since all fields are always initialized with a default value when deserializing. That's distinct from what a "required" field is in protobuf
I feel like this doesn't really answer the "why," it just describes the situation. Almost everything said here could apply to anything in the VC-funded world; what makes the crypto space uniquely vulnerable to this cycle?
The company's main site is truly bonkers. 27 repetitions of the term "Tier 1," half of them applied to nonsensical things. The CEOs bio lists his League of Legends ranking, twice. 14 available products listed for a supposedly 4 month old company. 24-point feature comparison against ChatGPT, almost none of them even remotely related to anything ChatGPT is even targeting.
Honestly this seems like the product of a guy on a fast track to a major nervous breakdown.
That probably describes some corners of Tesla's market, but 99% of people buying Teslas and FSD are doing it because it is (was?) a cool car with a potentially cool feature. You're letting the wildly unrepresentative sample of "loud people on the Internet" distort your perception of the world at large.
How in the world did you read "hit piece on open source" into this article? There's nothing negative about open source at all, he's making exactly the same point as you.
A lot of arguing "against LLMs" is not arguing "shovels aren't useful," it's arguing "maybe shovels aren't actually going to replace all human labor, and sinking so much capital into it we're starting to conceptualize it in terms of 'percent of global GDP' might not be such a great idea."
Are anonymous namespaces really that obscure? They're pretty bog-standard where I work, anyway. Don't think I've ever seen a .cc file more than a couple hundred lines that didn't have one for various helper functions.
Exhaustion is absolutely the first word that comes to mind for me. Even when I'm not using it myself, I'm exhausted of all the oxygen it takes up in the room
Sure; I think his point was that people much less likely to even notice/acknowledge the slide towards authoritarianism when their own individual experience isn't changing much. Not that it changes authoritarianism's moral standing.
While it's definitely more complicated than necessary, and silly that the game doesn't explain it at all, it also... doesn't really seem that complicated? Certainly not enough to live up to the amount of text spent building it up, or the amount of text explaining it, for that matter. You've got some offense and defense stats, each card draws a random number from 0 to its applicable stat (determined by type), highest number wins.
For the executive, sure. Not for the impact of the overall incentive structure on the trajectory of the business. Which is what this discussion is about.
Engineering blogger's love of parroting the titles of famous papers/articles (unreasonable effectiveness..., all you need is..., ... Considered harmful, etc) has always been lightly annoying to me
Sure, I suppose... The strange leap you're making is in the assumption that Internet memes are somehow inherently on the side of open-mindedness. Memes can be, and constantly are, absolutely used as weapons of propaganda, both intentionally and unwittingly. I'd say in general that's the rule, not the exception, at least where anything vaguely political or cultural is involved.
You're moving into delusional territory here. He is not being "exhaustively probed," he is being "constantly spammed by confidently incorrect nonsense."
My approach, finally mostly successful after over a decade, is just "no main feed or subreddit pages." Reading a thread off a Google search or whatever because it has information I want is fine.
Nix the language has issues for sure (error messages for starters), but "complexity" isn't really one of them IMO. It's quite a small and simple language.
The complexity comes in with the ecosystem and nix-the-build-system, each of which has a dozen different ways to do any given thing, all of which are in active use simultaneously. Some are pretty baffling, like nixpkgs' dual role as both the main package repository and the (almost entirely undocumented) de facto standard library