laszlojamf

No, people defraud shareholders all the time these days and get away with it. Look at Boeing

I don't know, man. Saying this is "just malware" is really stretching the definition of malware. At a minimum this is some pretty interesting and/or terrifying emergent behavior

for somebody who's out of the loop: what's the fuss over the ABC conjecture?

I use go for work and basically 100% agent-driven. I'd say using go with agents is a lot better than without. We use to have a consistent source of production errors where we forgot the pointer case in type switches (we'd pass a pointer to a struct where a concrete struct was expected and vice versa). AI hasn't made that mistake once in my experience.

That being said, the whole thing about go being "readable" is a little bit of a two-edged sword. Sure, it's straight-forward to read, but it's pretty verbose. And agents are good at producing a lot of text. The problem with reviewing go code for me is to see the forest for the trees. Subtle misunderstandings often hide in the vast amount of code that you have to read through while keeping the whole context in your head.

60 subagents for a day and a half. I guess he's not on the same plan I am on.

Now I'm not wont to ogle much in the swimming pool showers, but in my limited ocular estimation, wang size correlates much weaker than hands and feet.

The name is pretty ominous if you've read the Three Body Problem series. I don't want my agents planning against me in secrecy.

Just out of curiosity, why did you pick that name? Is there anything wallfacey about this project I'm not getting?

The most interesting thing about science fiction to me isn't the things the authors get right, but what they get wrong. Like, the whole house talking in a ChatGPT voice, intelligent appliances, etc: brilliant prescience. But he still thought we'd be having linoleum on our floors...

in general with automated code reviews I've found it fruitful to tell the model what specifically to look for and where. I usually don't get over 10% of the claude opus context window for code reviews, but it of course depends on how your code is structured, how much the agent has to explore etc.

What was it reviewing? Was it just a "take a look at this pile of code over here"? Because I think asking any model to review 30M lines of code is a stretch...

What I have noticed in my own work that a lot of the time that used to be for coding is now just waiting. I have three agents working on three different features in parallel, and I'll go back and forth with all of them, correcting things and steering etc, but then I find myself with three busy agents and nothing to myself except stare at the screen while they code away. There is a mental budget for me where I can't have more than those three running at the same time and still keep track so what I end up doing is just scrolling HN...

I've been reading a lot of stories like this lately. I'm no business genius, but you'd assume that investors are. Are they just blind or are they burning cash on purpose. What's the steelman argument here?

a friend of mine did a high school project where he and a friend learnt it well enough to have a short conversation with each other. That's the only time it has come up in life until now. I hope he sees this.

The scary thing is that it's unclear to me what would have happened if the guy hadn't had a Kik account, and the real perp had used just one underscore. Can you just pick somebody's username from another service to frame them for grooming? Couldn't you do this to anyone in that case, if that's all that it takes? I sure hope this article is leaving something out, otherwise this is some kangaroo court shit...

I agree that IntelliJ is a monster of a resource hog, but I have yet to find an editor where code navigation is as good. That's basically all I use it for these days, in the days of LLMs, and I still think it's worth it. VSCode, especially for golang, is terrible. I might be holding it wrong, but I've really tried, and it's just not good enough.

Before LLMs, when I still refactored by hand, coworkers who were using vim or vscode used to ask me to do big refactors, because IntelliJ always got it right, whereas with the other editors it was hit-or-miss.

As other commenters have pointed out, some of the comments in there are pretty scary. I guess the astronauts didn't have to read the code:

`TC WHIMPER -1 # YES. DONT DO POODOO. DO BAILOUT.`

I've been working as a software developer for about ten years, and I've started to get a little annoyed when my manager asks me what I'm gonna work on improving this year. Like what can I say? That I'll try get better at coding? That I'll get better at project management? At some point the marginal utility is just not there anymore. Even if I did get twice as good (whatever that means) at systems design, it's not like there is _that_ much systems design to go around at work that it would actually be noticeable.

What do senior developers say they'll work on improving in their performance reviews?

The caveat here is, as TFA states, is that you need to have "every constraint on the table". And that is almost never the case. Unless you create something in a mature domain, where everything has already been explored, you _won't know_ what the constraints are.

You can spend three months in whiteboard sessions planning out the perfect solution, and then your plan falls apart the second you start implementing, because the real world imposes constraints on you that were practically impossible to know a priori. Not theoretically impossible, mind you. If you'd been smart enough and spent enough time thinking about it, you would have thought of them. But you aren't smart enough, and you don't have the time. Those are some other constraints that the universe puts on you.

Americans also drive A LOT more than Europeans on average, and generally (is my suspicion at least) with a lot bigger/less efficient engines

boo on the downvote. The response is pretty funny IMO

Apparently ChatGPT-verified: https://xcancel.com/__alpoge__/status/2079045382940573896#m

I also haven't used it, but apparently people liked the old pebble: https://www.reddit.com/r/pebble/comments/1ijjm5w/people_who_...

I like the gym analogy. It's like how farmers used to be fit because farming involved a lot of manual labor. Then the tractor came and a lot of the physical work became optional and farmers got fat. Now we're all using fork lifts in the mental gym and thinking how strong we are.

AI definitely amplifies this problem, but it's not like it didn't exist before. Old people get scammed the old way all the time too. My mom calls me every once in a while asking about some freebie offer that she gets emailed from sketchy domains claiming to be spotify or something.

Not saying that "there's nothing we can do" or anything, but it does feel like this is one of those instincts that you develop growing up with the internet. Like, my first instinct reading that (and I hope getting that call) would be "what the hell is the lawyer doing at the scene". You have to treat _everything_ coming through your phone as potentially untrusted. I don't have any data on this, but it feels like my friends, and especially younger people, do that automatically.

The primary defence against all phishing is to tell yourself: nothing is ever really that urgent. Nothing is ever that good.

I really liked this game, but it frustrates me a little bit that there only seems to be one way to win. Or at least I've only found one. If I play the hardest AI, I can consistently win, with the right sequence, but it always ends up on the right side with the hares next to each other.

Is it like chess only way more obvious, that the first mover wins, and if so, wouldn't the Romans have figured it out?

Or am I just exploiting a weakness in the AI and a human would make better choices?

> I'll quote a Boeing (from MD originally) executive as saying "Meeting this project deadline is more important than your child dying."

Given Boeings later history this is pretty chilling...

I had a couple of courses that had open-book exams, where you could bring _any_ material you wanted. Any books, notes, equipment, really anything you wanted. The exam was still hard, because it focused on defining problems. Knowing what question to ask. This is still the hardest problem, even with LLMs. My guess is that most teachers don't like open-book exams, because they are hard to make. But maybe LLMs could help with this too. There is no putting the genie back in the bottle anymore, and restrictions are only going to be effective for dumb cheaters. You have to create exams which make the smart cheaters do actual work.

I love it!

But the bonus word (a word most player would miss) on 29/7 was not very subtle. No spoilers, but you won't miss it >.<

Bush Jr was born '46. Obama (literally the next president) was born in '61. Not much of a pattern there

walking into a wall slowly doesn't hurt much, but you really don't have to speed up a lot for it to a hurt a whole lot more.