If the LLM behaved more like a programmer-in-flow-state and we could "hitch a ride" or "ride the wave" along, maybe we can recover some of this unbrokenness of attentivity.
"This is engineering. I keep being told that" -- made me laugh out loud. We've gone from painting, to pointing to finished pieces in catalogues. Not to be utterly unhinged and tone-deaf but, there are other genres, such as jazz and screamo and noise that might suit the mood more aptly.
everyone who thinks this is a costly or bad idea is looking past a very salient finding: code doesn't need much language. sure, other things might need lots of language, but code does not. code is already basically language, just a really weird one. we call them programming languages. they're not human languages. they're languages of the machine. condensing the human-language---machine-language interface, good.
if goal make code, few word better. if goal make insight, more word better. depend on task. machine linear, mind not. consider LLM "thinking" is just edge-weights. if can set edge-weights into same setting with fewer tokens, you are winning.
Great observation. The brain of a programmer is still a "black box" to the feed-forward network of nodes . But in theory, if you pumped a lot of the live-coding videos from something like youtube into the process, you could get a bit of that "what's your approach"-erism to bleed into the model. There might not be enough material there to truly "train it to think" but it would be interesting to try and "fill the gaps" of black-box-ed-ness in the LLM with supplemental "here was the process that got us there" video feeds. The next natural move might actually be recording thousands of hours of footage of developers working with the LLMs directly like in Cursor or another IDE that has LLM live-pair-programming , maybe calling it "pair programming" is generous , but it might be a reasonable foray into teaching the next generation of LLMs the "thought process" behind things. In reality you'd be teaching it which files to inspect, which windows to open/close, which tools to switch to and focus on. And while it might be imperfect, it might just be enough.
Describing the chemistry doesn't invalidate the metaphor. It's still the moment fertilization initiates embryonic development. Explaining the gears of a watch doesn't make "the moment it starts keeping time" any less real, nor does it explain time.
The fact that the perceptron is modeled after the neuron should make this an unsurprising find, but the question of active sentience starting as early as in vitro should give everyone pause for where personhood begins. That zinc spark.
If you follow the American school of economics (Henry C. Carey), tariffs are actually a good thing, mainly because: 1) other nations all have tariffs (against the US and other nations) making free trade a delightful delusional idea 2) tariffs protect lesser industrialized nations from refining/enhancing raw materials into more expensive goods and selling them back to them. The systematic offshoring of industrial potential to cheaper labor places basically un-industrialized the US. I think it's very short-sighted to say tariffs are bad. What was bad was the de-industrialization of the leading superpower. The cure, if we may call it that, might be bitter medicine. Bitter, but necessary.
capitalism has always moved in the direction of automation, yielding booming progress and prosperity for much of mankind. the technological comforts we have today far exceed those of a thousand years ago, no one can dispute. but at some point, if there are no more jobs due to "full automation" then the promise of capitalism bringing most people out of poverty will start to fall short. it's a real question, what do we do then? short of adapting, as we always have, i don't see any viable alternatives. OP recommending not playing at all is peak derangement divorced from reality imo
traveling more would inspire one to think positively of capitalism, rather than the reverse. to quote andrew carnegie roughly, the status quo has always been misery for everyone, and just recently have we begun to extricate ourselves from it. not to mention that it is sheer derangement of luxury to have plenty of funding for one's own family, and yet vocally dissuade others from taking the same steps, for some "end game theoretical" that certainly won't arrive in single digit generations
Venture Capital subsidized gig economy apps until the dinosaurs of the previous economy (taxis, delivery services if any existed?) went extinct. So what now? Wait for regulation to catch up in an opaque at-will-employment industry with no unions?
I think you meant compared to a reference observer? Events are not really independent of observers. Consider the case in baseball where a runner and the baseman tag the base at the "same" time from opposite sides of the base. Assume they move at equal speeds. If the umpire is closer to the baseman then the baseman has tagged it first, if he is closer to the runner, then the runner has tagged it first. The "event" of "touching the base" has two possible outcomes depending on where the observer stands, and there is no "view from nowhere" or observer-free view that we can reference.
I just meant founders of any company, not necessarily SV ones. Sorry if it came off as very reductionistic, but I was trying to phrase things quickly and simply. If you're not looking for real life tips on how to build products and gain traction and stuff, then any topic is fair game. As online communities transform from niche-based places, to general purpose hangouts, the content can get watered down.
The majority of HN participants are now, not founders themselves. Founders have to focus on signal over noise. People who are not founders focus on... whatever.
What do you mean by "compete"? Surely there are diminishing returns on asking a question and getting an answer, instead of a set of search results. But the number of things that can go wrong in the experimental phase are very numerous. More bumpers equals less innovation, but is there really a big difference between 90% good with 30% problematic versus 85% good and 1% problematic?
The book Understanding Comics by Scott McCloud is a tremendous study in this area, Scott shows how you can add abstract meanings to words and pictures through illustration.