pretty much this, though i did notice a rebound where it can make people meander further into overengineering things, creating a bit of an induced demand
2,982 karma · joined July 23, 2024
could have banned the practice, demanded literal hardwire controls around it, etc. ensured that the customer cannot be pressured into enabling it all (so the vendor can't just disable unrelated functionality).
heaven forbid, demand selling infotainment-less configurations, or agreeing on a communication standard for real tablets and smartphones to communicate through.
instead, no, it's the chinese cars that should go.
Matter of fact, I'm expecting to be a whole genre soon, with people outright faking transcripts to get their way. Kind of already is, but mostly as jokes, not with people trying to play the modified transcripts as real.
You run the chances of being perhaps more easily targeted by self-righteous assholes, sacrificing for the common good you hope to also benefit from. If you appreciate that being able to separately browse between AI and non-AI works is useful, especially without particular moral judgement, and recognize this capability as socially facilitated, then the way to cultivate that behavior is to take the leap if you can yourself.
As long as people are on the lookout for AI stuff with their eyes in the red, this won't work. If you invert the mechanism and tell people hey my shit is AI, you take the wind out their sails, and directly disprove that you're some monster trying to trick or hurt them. It's easily avoided, so that narrative doesn't work anymore. Less ground for the villification to work on their part, as you can no longer be the cartoon villian they want to think you are.
Not the first platform with this feature by far either.
It's basically an honor system. The point is exactly to show that you're willing to be (somewhat) vulnerable. You can only demonstrate that you're not misusing people's trust, if there is trust to misuse. As long as AI usage is treated as betrayal, this is what remains. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_system
Not sure why the hostility anyways. If appreciating TCS results really is a higher brow activity, then GP's indignation at computational models shouldn't upset you, quite the opposite. It's definitionally the normal experience.
And while I do find the blogpost in the OP trite, that is mostly because it's from someone who should absolutely be more intimate with the subject than such "midwitted code monkeys" (aka. normal people) you refer to, yet pretends to feel duped by OAI's results. Quite the different case, and I think is much more worthy of ridicule as a result. They're the high brow who should be appreciating, understanding, yet fail to.
Very gonzo, but maybe I prefer to learn about these things with a little less circlejerk.
You can sandbox your agents all you want, literally all you hear about these days is how they keep circumventing the tightest sandboxes provided the motivation. And there's no reason to assume that an agent following sleeper activations is not behaving under abnormal motivation.
But maybe the two are genuinely tied together enough that it's deserving to be a part of the definition, I don't know. Tried looking up the definition, I'm not really convinced.
For the longest time I considered the "hate on bureaucracy" more of a reactionary trope rather than anything actually coherent. Maybe this is just another one of my cultural differences of many. It's not as if people forming consensus, keeping count, or delegating authority were ever actually possible (or desirable) to escape, comes with scale. So to try and paint it as some odd devilish plague always came across to me as dilettante, though maybe it's more me who's simply never grasped the whole dynamic and the cultural position around this fully.
Isn't bureaucracy just the sociological manifestation of synchronization overhead? Sounds shortsighted to file it away as just some weird social pathology that emerges out of nowhere specifically affecting humans.
so rewind that clock and see the above comment miraculously start making sense
yeah, i think they'll survive whatever the outcome
IaC codebases, configs, utility scripts are relatively tiny, and fit into context windows whole. Models are eating them for breakfast.
They're really good at incident response. Sadly, much better than our dedicated colleagues from <location> ever will be. They'll chew through cloud service logs, application logs, application code, iac code and config, CI output, etc. to get whatever is needed, cause wide knowledge is no issue. Even disassembling stuff is no barrier, tracing things down from app level, to runtime level (e.g. JVM), to native calls.
They're really good at handling deployments, end to end infra setup and migrations, following checklists. Hell, they don't even really need checklists. Something that cannot be said about other dedicated colleagues from <location>, who cannot breathe without a checklist, will skip over steps, or otherwise very creatively misinterpret them or improvise something wicked.
They're really good at spinning up mad nice dashboards, and keeping business types happy with impressive looking write-ups they'll never read. It's really refreshing to not have to write those write-ups anymore (or the aforementioned checklists).
It's straight up both not looking good and looking better than ever. Having it be fully hands off remains an issue though.
some parts are better than others, but god is it a quest to find anything in there.
Reads like Cursor's extension marketplace got compromised, hence how the OpenVSX and MS marketplaces can be unaffected.
The state of cope:
- models are still not intelligent, they're just like, uhh, really good semantic fuzzers! so you can just put them in the loop, they'll fuzz your code, and all is good :)
- the number of bugs is "finite", so - esp with agentic help - we'll just catch up and all will be good :)
Annoyingly, the cope frontier is kinda right about both of these, so the joke shall go on. The only real counter to it would be to bring up that this finiteness claim only really applies to a frozen set of security boundaries and attack surfaces, but they'll probably just raise this being "an academic tier concern" and just tell you to ""fuzz"" more.
So ironically, it looks like these practices are rescued once again, and the bare minimum stays winning. It also starts being moved to the territory of the magic box, but I guess nobody cares about that anymore. Local AI will just get really good too, fully competitive and self hostable even. Any day now.
From the horse's mouth, in case you were suspecting these descriptions to be in bad faith: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnV_cWeoo5Q
wouldn't be the first time manipulation like this was used, just that earlier the targets were humans (misleading them about functionality or country of origin). except for humans, the overhead induced, even with renaming, was significant. not so much for models, they don't give a fuck.
This specific circlejerk has blessed this industry a number of times already as well. People first became idiots thanks to higher level languages, then thanks to syntax highlighting, then thanks to IntelliSense.
It's a wretched trope that's been with us forever, and will probably never go away. The worst part is that it isn't even entirely meritless, just incomplete.
Do you mean "28° in the shade" perhaps, a French song from 1978 by Jean-François Maurice? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpPnr0mCka4
Been a while I heard it, had to look it up. :) I also recalled mid-30s something, guess that was wrong. Or this is another case of the Mandela effect.
GP's big leftist overregulation fantasy is adorable though, and definitely no stereotypes were hurt in the writing of his comment, but the reality is that mini split heat pump aircon installations in particular are booming here, usually paired with solar. So unless he's referring to something from the past millenium, which would be pretty weird to do without explicitly noting it, that's a swing and a miss.
The spooky statistics "difference" comes down to a difference in measurement methodology afaik. This exact talking point he's raising has been very popular in certain circles as of late, actually.
But I'm sure his position is entirely his own and actually way more informed than mine, he simply omitted his sources and rationale for brevity :)