71–80 of 139 posts
"Being honest with themselves about whether what they are doing is actually working or not" and "Having the courage to go on when nobody believes in you" are opposites.
No this isn't punching yourself in the face. Not for swes. What's written above is self confirmation that you are better than AI and that you will always have a job because you are better because AI can't build something that works. That stuff about convincing yourself you're building something useful is actually the easy question. Punching yourself in the face involves telling truths that are incredibly hard to stom…
I spent multiple 5-hour sessions spec-ing my climbing app with AI, clarifying interactions, algorithm, workflow etc. It ended up a frankenstein that I didn't recognise or know how each part interact with each other. Command line were a mess, different commands doing the same thing, with similar but redundant arguments. Everything looks kind of doing what I intended but overly convoluted and nothing really works. Real…
Once you have something concrete you can iterate on the prototype until it's a mess. But, hopefully, in that time you got closer to figuring out what you want. And even if the code for the prototype is a mess the "idea" of it should be cleaner. I like to have an LLM make a new spec at that point, and start fresh with it. You can clean up the abstractions and the UX there.
When writing code is cheap figuring out what you want to write is the hard part. It always was, but the barrier of getting the code written and working made that less obvious.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No matter how much you don't believe there is a tiger behind the bush. The tiger really believes you are going to be tasty.
So you build a machine that kills all tigers and now you don't have to worry about belief. The problem with objective reality is 1. it changes. 2. it can be different for different people in different places. If I live in rural India, there is probably not a tiger behind the bush. If I live in downtown Chicago there is almost certainly not a tiger behind the bush. This leads to the hard problem of probabilistic think…
You are overthinking this. Reality exists in a point in time and space, same point where you are. That is the only problem you face.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t think it’s about what should or shouldn’t be reported. It’s about your relationship to those things. If you wake up on July 21 and there are no headlines saying “The US has run out of gasoline, no driving!”, will you breathe a sigh of relief and be happy things weren’t that bad after all? Or will you browse the headlines for other scary things that might happen in the near future?
>It’s about your relationship to those things. The year 2000 problem is a good example of this. The year 2000 problem was not a problem. Not because it wasn't a problem, but because a shitload of people did a lot of work to make sure it wasn't a problem. If we didn't have news saying 'oh no, this is a problem' before Jan 1 2000, would it have been taken so seriously? In February 2021 Texas was so incredibly close to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a difference. The first is getting market feedback. The second is just getting opinions.
If I listened to market feedback I would have delivered a faster horse.
I spent multiple 5-hour sessions spec-ing my climbing app with AI, clarifying interactions, algorithm, workflow etc. It ended up a frankenstein that I didn't recognise or know how each part interact with each other. Command line were a mess, different commands doing the same thing, with similar but redundant arguments. Everything looks kind of doing what I intended but overly convoluted and nothing really works. Real…
I've been very pleasantly surprised. The combination of the compiler improvements in Elixir 1.20 and the structural guardrails from Ash seems to have led to very consistent, organized and readable code.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It’s about your relationship to those things. The year 2000 problem is a good example of this. The year 2000 problem was not a problem. Not because it wasn't a problem, but because a shitload of people did a lot of work to make sure it wasn't a problem. If we didn't have news saying 'oh no, this is a problem' before Jan 1 2000, would it have been taken so seriously? In February 2021 Texas was so incredibly close to…
Speaking of grids, USA power companies are saying they'll have to start blacking out millions of homes within a year, to have enough power for AI DCs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And when a mistake is deadly? Should we remove all safety systems so we can deal with the consequences? The number of mistakes you can make is infinite in comparison to the number of correct choices you can make. Since you don't have infinite lives and time there must be some manner of problem space reduction to ensure you get anything done. Luckily for us humans evolution has spend quadrillions of hours doing just t…
> evolution has spend quadrillions of hours doing just that Magnitude pedantery incoming: 1 billion years is "only" about 10 trillion hours.
Think of combined manpower. If you have 2 people working an 8 hour shift you've spent 16 hours.
/Pedantry crisis averted.
Cloud was like this too. You spent all this money as a startup with AWS regardless of whether you made a dollar or not.