Earlier quoted context omitted.
how can you tell?
Well for one, the commenter literally called themselves "no think just AI".
HAHAHA
The future of everything is lies, I guess: Work
51–60 of 247 posts
Re: The future of everything is lies, I guess: Work
#52Thank you for this aphyr. My one ask is people seem to put “CEOs” on a pedestal any time things come up, like they’re an alien life form and oh no they’re going to do something terrible. There are good company executives and shitty ones. You should try to start a company and see if you can be one of the better ones.
>My
And who are you? An account created for one post? There is a pattern of green account with usernames vaguely related to the subject matter of their comments.
Re: The future of everything is lies, I guess: Work
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
Misapprehension? If so, they aren't the only one. https://www.theregister.com/2025/02/06/uk_online_safety_act_...
Yes, misapprehension. According to the Ofcom regulation checker [1] (linked to by The Register article), the Online Safety Act does not apply to this content. Here's the most pertinent section (emphasis mine): > Your online service will be exempt if... Users can only interact with content generated by your business/the provider of the online service. Such interactions include: comments, likes/dislikes, ratings/review…
Perhaps the author is being outwardly cautious but knowingly borderline-obtuse as a form of protest against a dumb law.
Re: The future of everything is lies, I guess: Work
#54"Another critical lesson is that humans are distinctly bad at monitoring automated processes". Humans are also distinctly bad at noticing certain kinds of bugs in software. Think off-by-one errors, deadlocks, or any sort of bug you've stared at for days and not noticed the one missing or extra semicolon. But LLMs can generate a tsunami of subtly wrong code in the time a reviewer will notice one typo and miss all the…
> "Another critical lesson is that humans are distinctly bad at monitoring automated processes".
I believe the technical term is vigilance degradation?
Re: The future of everything is lies, I guess: Work
#55[dead]
Re: The future of everything is lies, I guess: Work
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
Misapprehension? If so, they aren't the only one. https://www.theregister.com/2025/02/06/uk_online_safety_act_...
Yes, misapprehension. According to the Ofcom regulation checker [1] (linked to by The Register article), the Online Safety Act does not apply to this content. Here's the most pertinent section (emphasis mine): > Your online service will be exempt if... Users can only interact with content generated by your business/the provider of the online service. Such interactions include: comments, likes/dislikes, ratings/review…
> Your online service will be exempt if... Users can only interact with content generated by your business
As soon as your blog allows comments which other people can read, then you're allowing people to interact with content not generated by your business.
Re: The future of everything is lies, I guess: Work
#57Re: The future of everything is lies, I guess: Work
#58The interesting question to me at the moment is whether we are still at the bottom of an exponential takeoff or nearing the top of a sigmoid curve. You can find evidence for both. LLMs probably can't get another 10 times better. But then, almost literally at any minute, someone could come up with a new architecture that can be 10 times better with the same or fewer resources. LLMs strike me as still leaving a lot on…
We are bottom. It's just a start.
We are in era of pre pentium 4 in AI terms.
Re: The future of everything is lies, I guess: Work
#59>> Imagine a co-worker who generated reams of code with security hazards, forcing you to review every line with a fine-toothed comb. One who enthusiastically agreed with your suggestions, then did the exact opposite. A colleague who sabotaged your work, deleted your home directory, and then issued a detailed, polite apology for it. One who promised over and over again that they had delivered key objectives when they had, in fact, done nothing useful. An intern who cheerfully agreed to run the tests before committing, then kept committing failing garbage anyway. A senior engineer who quietly deleted the test suite, then happily reported that all tests passed.
>> You would fire these people, right?
Okay, now imagine a different colleague. One who writes a solid first draft of any boilerplate task in seconds, freeing you to focus on architecture instead of plumbing. A dev who never gets defensive when you rewrite their code, never pushes back out of ego, and never says "that's not my job." A pair programmer who's available at 3 AM on a Sunday when prod is down and you need to think out loud. One who remembers every API you've forgotten, every flag in every CLI tool, every syntax quirk in a language you use twice a year, or even every day.
You'd want that person on your team, right? In fact, you would probably give them a promotion.
Here's the thing: the original argument describes real failure modes, but then commits a subtle sleight of hand. It personifies the tool as a colleague with agency, then condemns it for lacking the judgment that agency implies. But you don't fire a table saw because it doesn't know when to stop cutting, right? You learn where to put your hands.
Every flaw in that list is, at the end of the day, a flaw in the workflow, not the tool. Code with security hazards? That's what reviews are for. And AI-generated code gets reviewed at far higher rates than the human code people have been quietly rubber-stamping for decades. Commits failing tests? Then your CI pipeline should be the gate, not a promise. Deleted your home directory? Then it shouldn't have had the permissions to do that in the first place. In fact, the whole "deleted my home directory" shit is the same thing as "our intern deleted the prod database". We all know that the response to the latter is "why did they have permission to prod in the first place??" AI is the same way, but for some god damn reason people apply totally different standards to it.
Re: The future of everything is lies, I guess: Work
#60Bullshit is more dangerous than lies.