raincole

People have been complaining about how the models are nerfed non-stop for two years. A stopped clock is right twice a day.

Apple is very consumer focus and it has the highest marketcap ever.

Not parent commentor, but My issue with 1.01^365 analogy is that it implies that somehow that skill multiplies itself. There is no obvious reason to believe the gain from _(skill acquisition, language learning, workout, whatever) is better modeled as 1.01^365 than 1+(0.1*365).

Tesla's net income almost halved twice in the said three years btw.

2023: $15B

2024: $7B

2025: $3.8B

? Are you implying there will be something that affects investors' confidence to Anthropic, and somehow OpenAI will be immune to that?

If making game assets got really cheap (because of AI or whatever), the budget would just be spent on marketing. In theory you can spend infinite amount of money on marketing.

Anthropic has a higher valuation than OpenAI.

> Yet the only difference between a FA and a TM is that

> the TM, unlike the FA, has paper and pencil.

> Think about it.

The analogy doesn't works if you really think about it. A TM with a finite tape is equivalent to an FA. The fundamental difference between a TM and an FA is that a TM has infinite space.

(Yes, I know I missed the point and am not very fun at parties.)

I have been asking LLMs to review/edit prompts since GPT4o era, so I really don't know what the point of this snarky comment is.

Since GPT4o, I have been convinced that most of the digital work would be done by AI and humans' job is to "move the chairs around to not block AI's way." It's a given to me. I'm just debating whether reading the code makes me a better chair-remover.

I insist on reviewing every line of code. But in the last few weeks I realized that LLMs are simply better than me at reviewing code too and I'm just finding excuses to not do the real work, which is to write more prompts.

> that vicious circle of knowing your code is being used to train AI

There is no such circle. If you put your work in public, it has been used to train AI. That's it.

Really? You never heard about how OPEC?

Because local models are significantly worse? I'm not so sure what your question is. What else did you expect? If you could just build Claude Code at home, Anthropic would be valued at closer to $1.1M than to $1.1T.

> what language you wrote it in

You mean something like:

> turns it into a standalone UI library with a small C core

...?

Or this:

> At the heart of BUI is the kit: a small runtime written in C

......??

I personally have no issue of this, but the more I read your comments the more confused I got.

I'm confused. Are you being sarcastic? Isn't this readme in the most typical LLM-ism?

Many <s>sci-fi</s> writers really dislike LLM.

From my test it works surprisingly well. I have a digital painting that is only posted very recently (therefore not in the training set). I asked GPT, Gemini and Riverflow to generate images in the same style, and use SD to add noises to remove SynthID.

Pangram gave correct results for all of them (the original one is No AI; all the others are Likely AI).

The problem is most drivers believe they are above average drivers.

> machines

That's hardware.

Technical debt, as a term, predates AI code generation by at least 30 years. During the last thirty years, when people used this term, security vulnerabilities were definitely in their minds.

> You already have a degree from some university, and you already worked in software development for quite some time

Yep. Now substitute doctors/lawyers/accountants/civil engineers into the equation and see how you feel about it.

Surely they don't take a test for every client, but I'd consider the interview process more like a "workaround" for the lack of standardized tests for software engineers instead of the lack of respect.

I honestly don't know what's so wrong about taking a test for a job, unless the job already requires some kind of certifications/licenses. I, personally, wish that my doctors and lawyers have passed some tests.

If my government just decided to wire $1B account into my personal account without strings attached I'd 100% accept that in ecstasy. So if I say "spending money this way is unfair" I'm a hypocrite???

Or maybe, just maybe, one can acknowledge that a thing benefits them personally isn't necessarily justified for the whole country or humanity as a whole, and admitting this makes them less hypocritical?

Tiktok isn't. But how many people can get by without using any service that depends on datacenters?

"Yet you participate in society, curious! I'm very intelligent."

It has very little to do with piracy. The whole PC market is suffering [0].

[0]: https://www.pcgamer.com/hardware/worldwide-pc-shipments-have...

> "but humans also sometimes fail to load because of network issues"

They do. It's called "stuck in traffic."

Humans hallucinate much more, but they're not that good at making the hallucinations convincing.

It doesn't matter. Even if it were the most friendly community ever, as long as their core value were the same - answering programming questions that with clear answers - it would have been replaced by today's AI completely. It's irrelevant today how bad GPT3.5 once was.

I don't think it has anything to do with AI. Wikipedia has been like that for at least a decade for me.