tossandthrow

The idea about the goal of mathematics being shared understanding seems to come at a convenient time.

Mathematicians have never been known to communicate their ideas very clearly.

Regardless, even that target llms will likely win - an llm will likely be more efficient at teaching me string theory than a professor in a room with 463 other students.

The llm is the shared understanding.

Yes, so there is not reason to believe that you can do computations that the precompiler can not do.

There is no reason to believe that that you can not fully simulate intelligence in a C++ precompiler.

The precompiler can be simulated by human intelligence, and human intelligence can simulate a c++ precompiler.

Again, you are the one who arrogantly say they llms can not be intelligent without supplying any argument for such.

> That sentiment makes me cringe. If you understand how LLMs work, you'd know

> But not in the "I'd love to learn more" kind

I hope you are able to see the problem in your own communication here.

Computation classes are interesting because they say something about fundamental capabilities.

Two machine that are Turing complete are in theory able to carry out the same computations. They are isomorph mediums of computation.

Regardless. Please keep it sober. If you think you know something, enlighten us. But don't just propagate out lies.

Maybe you can enlighten us. In what way aren't LLMs able to make new contributions.

LLMs in agentic harnesses are Turing complete.

To my best knowledge, we don't know of any greater computational model that the brain is a part of, that LLMs are not.

I am not sure what you are referring to?

A photo with adjusted cropping, background blurring, and contrast etc?

The issue is discoverability. Photoshop has that one magical button that solves all of your issues. But it is hidden behind specialized knowledge and a 10 step deep menu.

Agentic solutions just don't have these issues. You give them your image, that's it.

My non technical wife asked ai to brush up the photo for her cv.

Ai did that with whatever cli tools were available and what it would write itself.

Ai is not a faster horse. It is a phase shift.

We won't see a gas station clerk write photoshop because we won't need a photoshop.

We are used the interfaces being web interfaces.

But say that the underlying api exposes some endpoint discoverability capabilities (eg. Exposing an openAPI spec), then arguably the action was invited: the actions was documented along with the auth model.

We are too early to deem it failed ai strategies.

I am advising small startups. One of them went entirely to agentic developed software by a team of non technical founders.

They had their sec audit done with considerably fewer errors than had a software developer build the same (which would have taken upwards of 4 times as long).

I am sorry, the technical capabilities of the agentic systems for software development is already much further ahead than what people comprehend.

Severe disruption is imminent.

We so don't know what plan she is using.

Eg.a 20usd/m plan usually don't cut it for professional work.

> AI writing makes me vomit.

There is likely a non empty set of writings that are AI written and that you don't recognize to be AI written.

I agree that the Ai-isms are ugly.

Butni also acknowledge that I am likely reading huge amounts of Ai text I don't attribute Ai.

What can be concluded is that some get immense value out of Ai and some are incredibly critical of that claim.

I do not know what the secret sauce is.

But I have a responsibility to the team I lead. I need to protect our velocity. Which means that my hiring practices now include specific checks that people are able to work with ai.

In the end, it might be a step thing. Some people are just inherently incapable of working with this technology...

Fair enough, that's on you.

You are talking from an ideal point of view. You want the companies to hold employees responsible.

But that is is not how it work. Why you appear obtuse.

Eg. Look at th3 therac25 case. No developers was held accountable.

We have spend more than a decade remove accountability from indiviauls. Using limited liability, insurance, and workers protection.

Accountability is the last reason why we need humans over agents.

> You're being reductive or just obtuse.

> or, at least, they should

Seems like you are the obtuse one here, and you appear to know it.

It really is not.

There are some areas that are critical and where software developers carefully will detail stear the work.

But the vast amount of software written, react components and rest endpoints, are very ripe to be entirely written by agents.

> The human who had their eyes and hands on the code has accountability.

They are not.

You can not go go back to a laid off person / one who quit and keep them accountable.

So this is absolutely not the case.

Devs are not accountable for their code.

This is just stupid.

Younperfeftky know that basically all software Deva use chatgpt or the like constantly to answer questions.

In that second some of the progress was already attributed to llms.

Both openAI, anthropic and all others guaranteed use llms to both suggest, implement, and orchestrate search for new model archetectures and algorithms.

> Until very recently the norm has been that the vast majority of code had human eyes and hands on it.

What quality does it have that humans had eyes on code?

Elite teams likely still produce code of better quality with a higher qa bar than agentic code. But that category is dimishing everyday.

The core point is that so much trust is reduced to "Joe in cubicle". Also a lot more than what he can carry.

Most of the code that is being executed on your behalf is far from written by elite teams.

You literally spend 99.999% og your time blindly trusting code - and that is only because I assume ymthat you write code yourself.

For 99.999% of people, it is literally kthxbye on all code they execute on all their devices.

Likely more than we realize.

Charge backs are generally not for returns.

If the charge was legal and within contract and customer regulations, then Hover might very well just challange the charge back.

I don't think that is true.

I think more of the capabilities comes from the cross domains knowledge.

Anyways, software is also designed for a domain. The reason why it is so adept at making a fitness tracker is likely because it knows about biology.

The core intuition here is probably that you can not separate reasoning and domain knowledge.

How are you going to use tools, if you don't have the context to use them?

Imaging if you could only think in terms of lambda calculus, and was asked to check the weather to let me know if the weekend is good for a hike.

That is literally what you said

> large growth but largest in top decile vs no growth, the first one is absolutely 1000x times better

So, you don't have a hard time with the Ai. You have a hard time with the intermediaries who's value is dimishing.

This is exactly the time to re organize. Not necessarily lay off, but some people might be asked to do other things or made redundant.

> careers that require communication, especially person-to-person, won't be replaced by AI.

A crucial point is that the amount of these careers might reduce dues to structural changes of the job market.

Just: yes, SaaS companies can do their work faster and can downsize. But a sizable portion of SaaS companies get to downsize entirely as their entire purpose is disrupted.

I don't think we should fear the big corps shrinking over night.

What we should fear is the startups.

Legal startup demonstrates they can do legal work at a fraction of the price. New generation of banks can underwrite at a fraction of the cost, or new insurance companies can insure much cheaper.

This will force the incumbents to reduce head count and use Ai.

You clearly appear to setup that argument

> So, on one hand you can get an expert take that might be wrong, but is linked to an actual person, with a reputation and some level of ownership.

Regardless, I agree.

The newest studies still works on llms that are two years old. It doesn't appear that proper medical harnesses with frontier models has been evaluated.

My slight intuition is that we will already now see results that are much better than average human doctors.

I get this sentiment. And I get that it will feel good to see these things crumble.

But I think it is most productive to assume that it does not.

I am a very capable developer, and I convince myself anymore.

You are citing a legacy institutional system where updating a "standard of care" was a major institutional chance.

You likely have to change your idea about this. Heck, this view was wrong 6 months ago. Sticking with is becomes a hazard to patients.