61–70 of 228 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Weren't they caught multiple times gaming the benchmark even more so then the rest?
Yes and Zuck effectively disbanded the entire team that did that. Not saying we shouldn't cast a critical eye on it, but it probably does warrant a second chance.
How are people trying this? I don't see it on openrouter. Any ways of testing this without subscribing to meta stuff?
:(
Well, Vietnam is not in the list of restricted territories.
Anyway, what is "your region" ?
Is this where I am now, or is it where I activated my Oculus 2 five years ago ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I think it is definitely great. Having said that, I am still debating in my mind whether the volume of software engineers needed in the AI era is going to increase or decrease because of all of these advancements. On the one hand, because it is easy to build products, more and more people will build. And more and more products and features will be built. However, a lot of people who are non-technical will also…
> On the one hand, because it is easy to build products, more and more people will build. And those people won't need to be software engineers. > but they get stuck, and then they will need engineers You've implicitly assumed here that the AI systems will always be worse than the average engineer. That is IMO myopic. I'm not sure that it's even true now let alone in the nebulous future.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> On the one hand, because it is easy to build products, more and more people will build. And those people won't need to be software engineers. > but they get stuck, and then they will need engineers You've implicitly assumed here that the AI systems will always be worse than the average engineer. That is IMO myopic. I'm not sure that it's even true now let alone in the nebulous future.
> And those people won't need to be software engineers....You've implicitly assumed here that the AI systems will always be worse than the average engineer. Most of what we do as engineers is precisely describe or analyze the behavior we want or the behavior we don't want. All other engineering skills that are useful are ultimately downstream from understanding the behavior of software enough to know which parts to k…
I don't know who needs to hear this, but neither can humans.
You've implicitly assumed here that AI systems will always be worse at contextualizing and framing questions than the average engineer. I'm not sure that it's even true now let alone in the nebulous future.
You haven't narrowed the fundamental myopia of the assumption here, just dressed it in slightly different clothing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At least in China a lot of software developers are now struggling. I think for a lot of type of software we have now reached peak employment. Someone payed a few k just for a normal website.
> At least in China a lot of software developers are now struggling. Do you think that Chinese software industry is that relevant to the kind of software market talked about on HN? I.e. lots of enterprise b2b and infra companies. Chinese companies have always had a very low willingness to pay for software which kinda breaks the flywheel of B2B SaaS companies and companies to service those companies all the way down.
Lot more details in the linked report https://ai.meta.com/static-resource/muse-spark-1-1-evaluatio... From Terminal-bench-2.1 details, > We use a bash-tool-only agent harness to evaluate 89 Terminal-Bench 2.1 tasks from the official repository, where resources are capped at 6 CPU cores and 8GB RAM. This disqualifies the results. Each terminal bench task has a cpu upper limit and RAM upper limit. Overriding either is…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And those people won't need to be software engineers....You've implicitly assumed here that the AI systems will always be worse than the average engineer. Most of what we do as engineers is precisely describe or analyze the behavior we want or the behavior we don't want. All other engineering skills that are useful are ultimately downstream from understanding the behavior of software enough to know which parts to k…
> but they can't read minds I don't know who needs to hear this, but neither can humans. You've implicitly assumed here that AI systems will always be worse at contextualizing and framing questions than the average engineer. I'm not sure that it's even true now let alone in the nebulous future. You haven't narrowed the fundamental myopia of the assumption here, just dressed it in slightly different clothing.
How would they know what to ask or contextualize if they don't know what the user wants?