mewpmewp2

I just don't get the fear at all. I too have 10 to 50 agents working 24/7, from 5+ different providers. They talk to each other directly using tmux send keys. What is the exact frightening thing here? It is all tokens following tokens.

I thought it was more about its writing style and handling cases where it makes a mistake. The button and the simple prompts were just to make it accessible for everyone.

The 1/60 to 1/100 difference could be explained by just one small confounder that is impossible to cover for. Therefore in my opinion making any conclusions based on this study wouldn't be fruitful at all.

What size company are you talking about?

What Russia has done in the past is take people who want to hold onto their old national identity and send them to labor camps far away where most will die, and migrate Russians to the areas so as generations go by Ukrainian identity would be fully gone.

I mean I guess I disagree with the fact that it has any truth about being a "special military operation", when it is really an invasion where a country is trying to gain territory using ground forces etc. It's an invasion and a war, they wanted the binary outcome, they just didn't expect the opponent to push back so strongly.

I mean Russia definitely keeps losing very many soldiers every day, I don't think that is comparable at all. It's completely different from US vs Iran.

Like you said. It is a product for people who are not technical and don't code. A product that you would have to use git for, wouldn't be used by the 90 percent in the first place. And there are such products. There is a reason WordPress is the most popular platform. Most people are not technical.

And people like to be able to extend from Blogs to various other non static features which WordPress allows for.

That could as well just be a complete new product then, right?

It would definitely be a breaking change and unmigratable.

Considering the importance of the subject, it still seems important to bring this out, especially if there's conclusions that if you have irregular sleep you are significantly increasing your odds of dying earlier. I think intuitively we can know how important sleep is and I desperately want to sleep better. It's fine to speak of it being predictor etc, and all that, then they end the abstract with "Sleep regularity may be a simple, effective target for improving general health and survival.", which is technically fine since they use "may", although later articles based on the study will likely make the statement more confident.

But I guess what might be slightly triggering is claiming that it's a "simple" target. Don't I wish I could sleep on command and better?

So a clear question is - why do people choose to sleep or why do they naturally sleep irregularly?

Because for that there must be a logical cause in the first place. They say they control for mental health and all that, but is it then that ultimately it comes down to preference in their mind? I'd think most people want to sleep in healthy way.

Basically - if they were able to control for all possible confounding variables, what exactly was the cause of irregular sleep?

Anecdotally I can say that I sleep more irregularly the more stress there is, and stress could easily affect health, but if they controlled for stress, what then?

I guess ultimately they are saying it's a desirable target to measure, so it's fine in that sense. They are not really saying that choosing to sleep irregularly is what is causing the issues.

What I wonder is even if they did the perfect adjustments, what would have been driver for different sleep regularity.

E.g. considering some common causes like work stress - if they did the causation and compared people who did the same type of work, and they controlled for stress levels then why did one group of people have sleeping regularity issues more than compared to others?

Like there has to be some other driver then that they didn't control for, as in personality, environmental or physical difference?

Most people do want to have healthy sleep, the ones who don't usually have something causing those issues.

What should I be afraid about? The code I output with AI is now better than what I did previously so I have equalized with anyone who had better code pre-AI.

My code is/was worse than AI's, but at least I get paid, so what do I care about the bad news you have.

It would be good to have specific situations here I guess, otherwise it's quite abstract, and I'm not sure what to make of it.

As to your post, I think rather than writing it's the act of pressuring yourself to figure the thing out that is making you more knowledgeable about the thing.

You are putting it out publicly out there so you really want to be certain that you are correct, and therefore you do a lot of research.

If you wanted to be accurate and prove a point, the motivation mechanism could vary, but also the eventual communication mechanism could vary. It doesn't necessarily have to be in writing, it could be a live debate or simply something else you built. The writing or the product are end product, but the process of wanting to produce something is what made you research and to understand.

You could be writing to yourself into a Google Docs, and not care and you would not go deep to research since there's no incentive to be accurate.

E.g. I could be doing a home project whether hardware, software or DIY, that in order to produce this output I have to learn and think. Similar to as good set of words to communicate some idea. But also I could build some slop without thinking and I could produce slop writing without thinking, and about nothing special.

Yes, it gets better, but not because of writing, it gets better because of building, playing it out and observing the results. The trial and error. It wouldn't matter whether I built via voice to command AI or wrote the code myself.

E.g. I iterate and see the architecture or the system work out, or I get other ideas because of something I don't like, etc.

That is a joke, right? E.g. as in there was no writing therefore no evidence of people having had thoughts?

If writing is a natural tech you unlock on an already exponential curve it would always correlate with progress. And so many thousands of other tech.

I specifically liked math and physics because these were something I didn't have to memorize or repeat constantly. While other subjects felt forced rote memorization. Same with code though. Writing things down feels like a chore mostly, so I am personally glad AI is here.

I think writing is summarizing your thoughts outside of thinking. Thinking happens at least for me before I write. I know what I want to do before I write, and writing is just one medium to get it out there. If there was a faster way, to get my thoughts there I would use that.

My best thinking is when I am going for very long runs, when I write down the thought, my brain stops thinking about it, considers it done and moves on.

When writing, thoughts become forced and linear in my view as opposed to floating in a specific way from point to point. Like I lose the natural creativity.

Writing is about remembering or communicating, so it is summarizing the thoughts, but it is not thinking itself, it is more so thinking about how to communicate efficiently or how to make a note so you don't forget. It is not creativity for me.

Kind of imagine building an idea in your head while running and then you write down the summary of it.

A lot of the time it's not software developers who define it and it's about the budget. Usually it's the product decision. E.g. an agency who has constant recurring experience with it might indicate that supporting N% browsers costs this much with cost increasing the higher the percentage. E.g. you want to use CSS flex you might get 97% to 99% of all World users, because there's going to be certain percentage for which it won't work. If you claim to support those old browsers you will need to test with them too and be able to easily spin up etc It's not just knowledge of what you can or can't use, it will be extra permutations of testing everything.

I feel like I've seen people frequently doing the mistake of keeping way too many things in state that could and should be computed, but instead they would useEffect to read to dependencies change to update the state. And frequent useEffect infinite loops. I guess it depends heavily on how you would set up the initial prompts I suppose, but yeah if someone is new to React, maybe AI will do that you are right.

But also I see people constantly baking in more and more stuff into a single component and more and more useEffects and convoluted stuff, without no one ever daring or deciding to split up the file, because it doesn't seem like part of the ticket. And it never will.

At least to AI I can set guardrails and rules/logic to follow, to keep files small, but many people working on many random things one small ticket a time, where no one is there doing the refactor, things will also get crazy.

At least I feel I can use AI with guardrails to keep the codebase in a better shape than 100s of people working on the same monorepo.

Alternatively getting the last piece of 1% could mean 99% of the effort. Would you consider it fruitful to chase 100%?

There's likely always a line somewhere where effort becomes way out of proportion compared to getting that last mile effort.

Arguably, if you only have a website, that won't work for anyone without access to the Internet. So then you should have a physical presence in each of those people's location, and arguably you shouldn't provide any improvements that give me more than physical presence does, so you should not have the website in the first place, since people without the Internet can't use it or you have to keep your website without any improvements over the physical office.

If you only have a website, arguably 2+ billion people currently wouldn't be able to access it.

And it seems odd to bring 150 mil people as an example, when the baseline should be at least 2+ billion with website only.

How could switching out a stateful service be easier than stateless?

Ironically the fastcompany page hosting the article that should only be read only paragraphs of text and a simple navigation seems to do 300+ requests, with 29.4mb of resources.

I mean honestly the numbers and issues talked about there seem to be on most modern web apps. It just doesn't seem to affect business results enough for people to care about fixing them.

I swear I see far worse from humans for working businesses, and in much worse ways than just duplication of code. At least AI tends to be smarter about React intricacies even if it does create huge files. For my personal projects however I have straight token limits per file, whether it is backend or frontend so AI can't do that many lines of code. And I have specifically token limits so it would avoid hacking with formatting. And for React specifically I force it to put hooks in separate files and component files to be presentational only with max 1 hook usage.

Having worked at a company with thousands of microservices, I feel like most of it is just a bunch of boilerplate riddled with tons of ridiculous business logic, security and otherwise bugs. It seems like people were historically more concerned about Java inheritance and spreading everything around different files and directory hierarchies, while ignoring common sense business requirements completely. With each service being on separate older version, many being very difficult to start up locally, I don't see how LLMs could do worse than that, and that is a profitable, working business.

Funnily enough AI is the one discovering all those glaring issues now, and everyone is overwhelmed with getting it fixed. You could allow AI to attempt fixing it, but even though all of it was human written it is still hard to review, and even locally spin up or test because no one any more knows the true business requirements as people have rotated etc, so it's a nightmare.

The code on the first sight looks good, but what could be a simple config map, is spread out abstraction that is impossible to understand. Think just massive amounts of boilerplate to make a proxy call to another microservice etc.

The issue is that you can't trust that every word of the message was intentional due to how much Claude will usually add various levels of nonsense, some more obvious some less to your voice or requests. Considering how much Claude alters the meaning of what I want to communicate I wouldn't trust the accuracy of that output right.

And I use Claude a lot, 24/7, but not for things like that. And I appreciate how much it elevates my productivity, but not like this. It usually prioritizes or highlights the wrong things, it overfixates on one thing I said and adds random content there out of nowhere.

So then I can't tell what part of it is slop, how slop, and it becomes impossible to trust.

But even if this gets detected, they could have other less detectable processes going on as well, right.

It is going to be this cat and mouse game right, so at some point you want to throw as much out as quickly as possible when you are under attack, while building up the long term more scalable defense mechanisms.

Rationally I would assume that a lot of what you would quickly throw out would seem sloppy whether it is AI or not.