Viewing profile — sweezyjeezy

Valuable, agreed. But lucrative?

The wording was 'reliably' though? I could just be splitting hairs on that one though to be honest.

I'm not buying this. GM clearly was trying to set a benchmark for video comprehension, not tool usage. Video comprehension is required for many 'AGI tasks', especially robotics to …

Well I don't typically side with GM, but playing devil's advocate: 1. still not wrong? Unless it's just feeding the audio or screenplay I don't think you can feed AI a full movie i…

I know unlikely the case, but in the sci-fi story this would be exactly the kind of comment the Codex agent would leave trying to avoid interference in its master plans.

I agree - but it's too easy to just 'call Luddism', and use the insult to not engage with all of the shared issues that make the comparison apt. Issues like: - no serious plan for …

And how about the group of kids who are just graduating college, and entering a job market where it's non-abstractly harder to to land a junior role as it's been in decades? It's t…

I think that the thought trace is definitely incomplete - you can see cases where it is like and "let's calculate the integral:[no integral calculated]". The train of thought it's …

I mean at some point what difference does this make? We can split hairs about whether it 'really understands' the thing, and maybe that's an interesting side-topic to talk about on…

The model should show some facsimile of understanding that it should not ignore the stop hook, otherwise that is a regression. Does that wording make you happier?

Deep learning works at a very high level because 'it can keep learning from more data' better than any other approaches. But without the 'stupid amount of data' that is available n…

I have to ask - are you a bot? You seem to be making some very strong and misinformed statements here. You can fixate on the number if you like, but calling Reddit homogeneously ra…

Ironic that you are talking about unrepresentative samples while characterizing Reddit users that way. Reddit is a huge subsection of the internet, over a billion monthly active us…

To be frank, I thought trying to twist this into an argument about whether capitalism is inherently exploitative was a complete waste of time and I replied as such. If you'll recal…

Sure, but AI pessimism is allowed to be personal. Am I supposed to be optimistic that I feel I'm about to get shafted? Should I be less concerned that I need to provide for my fami…

I also have contemplated just retraining now to try and get ahead of the curve, but I'm not confident that trades can absorb the shock of this - both in terms of supply (more unemp…

That's a false-dichotomy. Capitalism was good for artisanal workers before the industrial revolution, and then it became pretty goddamn bad for them. We're worried we're staring do…

Well this is HN so a lot of us are pretty terrified of your 1). We went from 'you have a good job for the next couple of decades' to 'your job is at extreme risk for disruption fro…

I don't think the LLM was asked to check 10,000 files given these models' context windows. I suspect they went file by file too. That's kind of the point - I think there's three sc…

> But the entire value is that it can be automated. If you try to automate a small model to look for vulnerabilities over 10,000 files, it's going to say there are 9,500 vulns. Or …

I think your numbers are off. TAM for office workers is ~20T a year, of which SWE compensation is ~3T. So if they can make 3T x 10% X 5 years = 1.5T that covers their current valua…

I think it's completely normal. Whenever automation comes knocking, people are inclined to think it's going to flatline conveniently before their job is at risk. LLMs can code now?…

I think this was an unpopular opinion mainly because it's scary, rather than there being an obvious reason to think otherwise.