Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’re absolutely right!
That is the load-bearing detail.
Exactly — and it carries the point that others would try to gate
We need tech news sources which exclude AI
71–80 of 96 posts
Re: We need tech news sources which exclude AI
#72[flagged]
Re: We need tech news sources which exclude AI
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
With cryptocurrencies/NFTs/etc. everybody talked them up because they are invested in Bitcoin or whatnot. With LLMs, everybody talks them up because they are invested in Nvidia or have other exposure (which is almost everybody considering with all the datacenter building if this industry tanks US economy is also), or because they are invested in having jobs.
So then what of people who’ve been working in AI for decades? specifically those who like me are very excited about the future and have been excited about every step of the way since they got started? In my case this is all going fantastically as planned and almost perfectly on the Kurzweil timeline. so as a 40+ person who has been wanting an Oracle in my pocket forever, we are closer to that then we have ever been.…
If you create technology that suddenly amplifies societal problems, it's functionally indistinguishable of technology being the problem.
Also, I notice that with age people are less anti LLMs. I have to wonder if it has to do with the fact that we have less time left and so we care less about long term repercussions.
Re: We need tech news sources which exclude AI
#74[flagged]
Re: We need tech news sources which exclude AI
#75Re: We need tech news sources which exclude AI
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
OP does not want to censor AI topics from every news source. They want news sources which provide access to topics that exclude AI. (Without necessarily those same sources excluding AI entirely.) This is legitimate. There are many topics in computing and tech. Not wanting to read about AI in every category is much the same like not wanting to see a C++ forum filled with threads about Angular.
Thanks for the clarification. To use your example; if the next version of the C++ language was switching to interpreted and compiled C++ was becoming an obsolete thing of the past, then I would expect every forum discussing C++ to be discussing this change. Trying to exclude that topic and still read interesting news about C++ would be very difficult, obviously, because everyone would be expressing their opinion on t…
> It's not a separate tech
Yes it is.
> fundamental change in the way we develop software across the board
Whether you produce your code using "ed" on a hard copy printer TTY, or use an IDE, is off topic in a C++ forum.
The way you develop software is a specific topic: the way-you-develop-software topic. Someone not interested in that topic should be able to easily filter that out from their feed, like any other topic.
Re: We need tech news sources which exclude AI
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a consultant I am looking forward to being hired by companies to get rid of all the vibe code and to replace it with beautiful maintainable artisanal code.
Idk if someone paying attention to how 2025 and 2026 have gone thinks that by 2028 we will be backing off of agenting coding that is wild. Like the other comment says: future models refactor the code of older models.
Great that you know the future when nobody else can.
Re: We need tech news sources which exclude AI
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
The difference between compilers and LLMs is that compilers actually work . LLMs do not produce a usable result, no matter how much AI bros try to convince everyone else otherwise.
> LLMs do not produce a usable result At this point, this is categorically false. Your mental model is very out of date. The results may not be ideal but I can't say I've had a single output so far this year that wasn't usable .
That, if true, was pure luck. Compilers are deterministic, LLMs are casinos.
Re: We need tech news sources which exclude AI
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
Idk if someone paying attention to how 2025 and 2026 have gone thinks that by 2028 we will be backing off of agenting coding that is wild. Like the other comment says: future models refactor the code of older models.
Great that you know the future when nobody else can.
No, I just have a prior that’s informed by real information and evidence and that’s quite strong.
- scaling laws exist
- downstream perf trends also exist (epoch capability index)
- gpt4 to gpt5 leap in capabilities every 16-18 months
- actual adoption and retention and engagement numbers are out of this world
- RL with verifiable rewards will get you to super human performance even with poor sample efficiency
- zero evidence of a plateau
I don’t know the future I am just skeptically looking at the data.
What data are you looking at?
Re: We need tech news sources which exclude AI
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder if people said this about compilers. Some day they’ll replace all that compiler generated junk with hand crafted ASM. This reminds me of that. The spec is the new high level language. Code is ASM. ASM is like CPU microcode.
The difference between compilers and LLMs is that compilers actually work . LLMs do not produce a usable result, no matter how much AI bros try to convince everyone else otherwise.
Have you tried them recently?
They absolutely 100% produce usable results for large classes of problems. Usually problems on the more "boring" side, but that's most code.
Even local ones are getting "usable." As an experiment I used OpenCode + Qwen coder to code a text based side scroller game in Rust. Left my laptop on and went to bed and in the morning I had a passable demo that looked like the old DOS game ZZT. This was with a 30b model at 4-bit quantization, so pretty tiny by LLM standards.
BTW LLMs seem to do well with Rust. I think it might actually be the guard rails. It lets the LLM iterate against itself. Dynamic languages don't give any compile time feedback, so it's harder to do that. This is something that's 100% the opposite of what I would have expected.