151–160 of 164 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please elaborate. Share what you built and how you prompted and what you are making from it, and how many tokens you paid to rummage through.
you can't proclaim any sort of knowledge about AI's currently capabilities by opening up a codebase and typing a couple prompts into the vscode agent.
https://www.comp.nus.edu.sg/cs/people/abhik/
Of course, he also had a startup for an agentic "AI" approach for software.
I bet he hasn't written any real software like many academics. We should not listen to these people who chair conferences and let them dictate the future of real hackers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Almost all philosophy is incredibly worthless in general, and especially in application to AI tech. Anything that actually works and is in any way useful is removed from philosophy and gets its own field. So philosophy is left as, largely, a collection of curios and failures. Also, I would advise you to never discuss philosophy with an LLM. It might be a legitimate cognitohazard.
How exactly do you presume to make an argument about thought and whether or an LLM exhibits genuine thought and intelligence without philosophy? Not to mention the effect of formal logic in computer science
If you don't have anything measurable, you don't have anything at all. And philosophy doesn't deal in measurables.
So the author is providing some personal annotations and opinions on a summary of a “new paper” which was actually published five months ago, which itself was a summary of research with the author’s personal annotations and opinions added? These are exactly the kind of jobs that I want AI to automate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's really hard to know what/how to even describe real problems to these tools I would argue that if you can't describe the problem in plain language then you don't have a very good chance of solving it with code or otherwise. Personally I find that the act of describing the problem will often reveal a good solution...then it's just a matter of seeing if the LLM agrees with me or if it has a difference idea (for b…
As software grows the problems go such that the effort to completely describe the necessary changes in plain language is often not all that much shorter than the code. Especially if you have a really really good autocomplete for the boilerplate parts of the code. So LLMs being really good at the tedious autocomplete makes LLMs have less marginal utility for the "write the whole thing" for certain types of work. But t…
Sure, but you've already lost at this point. Your code is so jacked up that you can't even describe what it does in words.
Now imagine what happens when a customer calls customer service and asks why their promo code isn't working.
> And at this point you're gonna need to use plain language to describe and refine the problem with the product manager - but if you instead were relying on an LLM to turn your short sentence into the right code, it might pick the wrong thing when it comes to modifying that existing code.
I think you're agreeing with me here...
But TBH this all feels like the establishment trying to protect it's turf, which is understandable. But using the argument of "my code is so overcomplicated and confusing that nobody but me can understand it but me" probably isn't the best position to take.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Calculators wont give you completely wrong results, not even once, where "AI" does that way too often. If calculators did too, mathemeticians simply would not use them.
Yes in terms of raw LLM, but with some tools or a MCP the “AI” will never be wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Calculators wont give you completely wrong results, not even once, where "AI" does that way too often. If calculators did too, mathemeticians simply would not use them.
Yes in terms of raw LLM, but with some tools or a MCP the “AI” will never be wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think AI will ever be able to compete with real actors, not in a meaningful way.
Animated films have competed for box office dollars since basically the dawn of cinema. Animated characters have fan followings. Just wait; the stuff is coming. Ultra-realistic full-length feature films with compelling AI characters that are not consistent from beginning to end, but appear in multiple features. The public will swallow it up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How exactly do you presume to make an argument about thought and whether or an LLM exhibits genuine thought and intelligence without philosophy? Not to mention the effect of formal logic in computer science
By comparing measurable performance metrics and examining what little we know of the internal representations. If you don't have anything measurable, you don't have anything at all. And philosophy doesn't deal in measurables.
You're not being serious.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You say it as a joke, but spell check has replaced certain tiers of editors. And Photoshop has replaced certain tiers of designers.
Bad ones