201–210 of 235 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep humans and civilization are subject to the same model-collapse phenomenon as they interact more with LLMs, but engineering knowledge has always been held by a small minority with certain personality characteristics. Maybe the minority will get smaller but I'm not sure it will completely disappear. There's always people like yourself building archives.
See A Canticle for Leibowitz
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AI is more "grown" than it is "hard-coded". It's sideways to normal software - the way DSP is sideways to normal software but somehow even worse. It all comes down to hard logic eventually, but that "eventually" has teeth. None of the interesting behaviors of AI systems live in "engine.py". My point is: there are tasks where the choices are to use AI, use a meatbag, or suck forever. The "use AI" option going to be fl…
The contempt you people have for your fellow human beings is palpable. Your point is obfuscated because your objective seems to be to degrade others.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The contempt you people have for your fellow human beings is palpable. Your point is obfuscated because your objective seems to be to degrade others.
You seem to hold human beings in way too high of a regard. That alone, in my eyes, would be well worthy of contempt.
Yeah I've been saying this for a while: AI-washing any text will degrade it, compounding with each pass. "Semantic ablation" is my favorite term for it: https://www.theregister.com/software/2026/02/16/semantic-abl...
Someone AI'd and "extended" some code I wrote, and it did what day-1 jr programmer did - moved all the whitespace lines around and destroyed readability.
Like "cleaning up" the mona lisa :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You seem to hold human beings in way too high of a regard. That alone, in my eyes, would be well worthy of contempt.
What? You sound like a cartoon villain. What’s wrong with you?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You can’t get mad at an experiment for not happening in the future. I’m more getting mad at this sentence not making any sense. I’m disappointed at this experiment for not testing the actual capabilities of an LLM. Comprende? > They simulated common end user behavior Not the way you use it. And not the way it will be used. You love it because you want it to stay this way so you can forever believe AI will never be…
>You love it because you want it to stay this way so you can forever believe AI will never be better than you. >Bro the reality is unfolding as you speak >You go pretend you live in that reality where the bullets will never appear. It’s too late bro, roko’s basilisk was real and it’s already punishing you
When I said the experiment is inaccurate to the current abilities of AI it’s fucking right. Admit it and stop going off tangents.
There’s no argument against this. You’re dodging and weaving trying to dodge reality. I don’t know who roko is and I don’t give a shit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with most of what you wrote except for this: >Frequent LLM users already know not to do that. And I think that’s the biggest problem. Amidst the current push to utilize LLMs across orgs and groups there are a large (if even say majority) of people that are using them every day but who have never approached anything as technical as a “harness” before let alone an entire setup. For them the behavior mentioned h…
Exactly. When I use a scissor, I don't want the scissor to not work just because I'm not a "frequent scissor user," and then get told by someone who makes their breakfast with scissors that I'm doing it wrong. Most people will not be "frequent" anything users.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. When I use a scissor, I don't want the scissor to not work just because I'm not a "frequent scissor user," and then get told by someone who makes their breakfast with scissors that I'm doing it wrong. Most people will not be "frequent" anything users.
If you make the example any more complicated, it makes sense. A lathe operator isn’t any good if they don’t frequently operate lathes. A articulated robot implementer needs frequent experience implementing robots to be any good. That doesn’t mean lathes or robots are useless. Nor does it mean they have failed as products because they require expertise. I do think it raises questions as to whether vast swathes of the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This will change too man. Maybe I am in a bubble but with how fast things are changing, it won’t be too long before the bubble becomes reality. Either way we should be doing experiments on the actual capabilities of AI not about the stupidest possible way to use AI because it helps validate your own negative bias against AI. Additionally as software engineers using agentic AI… which HN basically is… this experiment i…
First off, It’s good to study all kinds of things isn’t it? Even if it’s not strictly practical. Second, and more importantly these AI tools are EVERYWHERE right now. The effects of people using them for work can be seen throughout many industries and workplaces. So I think studying how these models perform in the vast majority of use cases is not only a good idea, but it’s actually really important. Even if you’re s…
Course it is. But the conclusion everyone is coming to is that LLMs are garbage and can’t be used because of 25 percent degradation which is not in line with reality.
> Second, and more importantly these AI tools are EVERYWHERE right now. The effects of people using them for work can be seen throughout many industries and workplaces.
At 25 percent degradation these tools would not be everywhere. They are everywhere because it’s not actually used that way.
> So I think studying how these models perform in the vast majority of use cases is not only a good idea, but it’s actually really important.
I have less of a problem with this study and more about the interpretation of this study.
> Even if you’re strictly pro-AI and believe it is the future, a study like this can help you explain to laymen why they need the harnesses you’re so in support of.
I’m not pro-AI. I’m anti AI. I fucking hate fucking AI.
What I’m angry at is this delusional denial of reality. This experiment is very obviously not accurate yet people are using this study as a headliner to promote an anti AI agenda.
I don’t like AI but that’s different for lying to myself or trying to say AI sucks at something when it is in fact superior then us in this respect.