rowanG077

In the end there is always a separate reviewer. Even if the producer is adversial and not even looking at the code then this process exists to catch it. This is not at all different from people attempting to get backdoors into Linux.

Interesting for me it's the opposite. I care about this so I let AI do it since LLM are better writers than the majority of people. I'm not so arrogant to think I'm a writer of that caliber.

I agree that people can write code for whatever they want, and that is valid.

Code can be art, making food can also be art. So I'm don't agree with your distinction that code is materially different from baking in that aspect.

The terminology "from scratch" and "by hand" are really not interchangeable in my opinion. "By hand" implies something about the process. "From scratch" implies something about the state before you started, not anything about the process.

No I wouldn't, but that is not really what happened here. If someone used a bread making robot and put the ingredients in there and it made bread most people would have no problem saying they made bread from scratch. In the same vein people say "I did the laundry" or "I did the dishes" but in both cases the real work is often done by a laundry machine or dishwasher.

In the same way a program manager is free to say "We build X from scratch" even though they made no code contribution to it. The we is replaced with I since no other person was involved in this case.

But isn't that correct? It doesn't seem to be based on anything, or am I missing something?

Or is it "To make an apple pie, you must first invent the universe" kind of deal. Which doesn't make sense to me either.

Why does it matter? Tbh at this point if frontier models are used I would place more trust in the average codebase than the average pre-AI codebase.

There are outliers where an excellent team of devs produce great quality, better that even frontier LLM code now. SQLite comes to mind. But it's easy to forget that is the 0.x%.

This really leaves a bad taste in my mouth too. It's unfortunately inline with their absurd AI policy. Instead of working for the good of the users they literally are trying to halt progress. It's pretty clear the omarchy people will run circles around asahi very soon. Asahi people think this too and are trying to limit them as much as they can with license changes.

You cannot brute force lean proofs of any complexity. The space is infinitely large.

Show me the pure AI company in the 80s that even approaches Anthropic in terms of revenue and profit excl R&D spend.

> or many types of study, especially new ones, having such a setup is just as hard as doing the thing that may or may not require massive automation. For example, testing a new type of high acceleration engine. How would you even setup a lab to have hundreds of test beds for this? Would you need to manufacture hundreds of prototypes of the engine to even do the test? Where would you source that if the whole point is proving whether the engine works and produces more thrust. You probably just have one prototype sitting on a table. Sure when you get to the point of refining a tested and well-studied design, automation helps.

This is the point where robotics can re-arrange their own labs.

This misses that AI is already designing and carrying out experiments autonomously. This will only explode with the growth of capabilities in robotics.

I have worked in tape for years. We can really tell there is a big boom after years of the market not doing super well.

You are certainly free to refuse medical assistance from whomever or whatever you want.

We are talking in the context of the future. I could have elaborated I guess. I personally don't foresee a future where human doctors will in general outperform AI and robotics.

Why would you want a human? I don't see how anyone would pay more for worse care.

This has been my feeling as well. Even less so actually. There are realllly good games release nowadays. Like literally insane level of quality. But you also get an insane amount of stinkers. And those stinkers are increasingly coming from AAA studies.

Nitpick but 25% improvement over 8 quarters is 1.25^8, almost a runtime in 1/6th of the time.

So what you're telling me is that Apple is willing to put multiple generations of devices out to pasture because in the future they intend fix it with a new platform. That does not inspire confidence that they now care about thermals, the opposite actually. What you're saying is that they again might have slipped up and we need to wait for the next redesign for it to improve.

Yes, but there was ample time for Apple to re-design the thermal system of their macbooks. Instead they kept releasing extremely thermally limited devices year after year.

That would be excusable for a generation of macbooks. Not over multiple generations.

I hope so. I just see Apple going down the same dark path they used to before the M series laptops.

TBH this is one of the things that will be a clear downgrade imo. Weight reductions and thinness are not free. The Pro and Max chip version are already over powered for the cooling system the current macbook pros have. And now they are further cutting into the laptop...

Very worried to see it's 1mm thinner. The existing macbook pro was already struggling way too much with heat. And now they shave off 1mm.

Calling it something extremely negative like a cattle pen makes clear that you aren't even open to consider anything but the negatives.

You can do that? You have a million people ready to go? Whereas a singular person on a rich country salary can actually go out and start vast amounts of agents. I'm honestly perplexed by your argument. Most people would struggle to find even 5 people who will join them on a journey to build something that takes a long time. And you are just casually throwing out there "Well someone can just gather a million people".

Well not really. The point is "There are some things that are sped up by a very large factor, easily over 1000000x.", this is obviously referring to wall clock time. Not "agent time".

Yes companies/large groups of humans are sometimes also a lot faster at doing some things than a singular person. I'm not sure why that matters or what your point with that is.

I don't think you are supposed to multiple the number of agents with the time. After all a single human can run arbitrary number of agents. Still 1000000x speedup is a few order of magnitude too many imo.

That's moving the goal post. I was responding to this line in your comment:

> so turning over control to AI companies where no human ever sees the patient is a no brainer

Using an open weight model turns no control over to an AI company, even if that model was created by some AI company.

I'm not sure what AI companies have to do with it. Open weight models are available and work great, literally today kimi K3.1 pro was announced and goes toe to toe with closed models. You are tying AI usage to bigAI and that is unfounded.

I think it won't happen because people just care to much for performance. You already see this now. You see a ton of rewrites moving to rust even from higher level languages.