261–270 of 412 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anecdotes aren't real. Don't believe any of them if you don't want to.
Okay thanks. But what I'm saying is all of these anecdotes should add up to something measurable if there's something to the idea that an inflection point was reached in November 2025, right? There's a lot of marketing and hype and motivated reasoning going on, so that's why I don't trust broadly-reported notions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This category of software may have a much more meaningful impact on work than the mostly-chat systems we were using from 2022-2025. Mostly an impact on software development - I'm not seeing broad automation and layoffs in industries like law, finance etc. It will gradually happen but due to issues with memory, reliability and long term planning of LLMs there are real barriers. Even in software development - while i…
I'm optimistic that coding agents will not obsolete software developers - my own experience is that coding agents have made my work harder, because the scope of projects I can take on has increased. My ideal version of all of this is that nobody loses their job and everyone gets to take on more ambitious projects. I'm not quite naïve enough to assume I'm right about that though!
Likewise. I find the types of problems I need to tackle and the challenges they represent are actually quite exhausting, too. And the agents unblock me relentlessly so I’m constantly pressed to do relatively difficult things. Either that or code review. I’m hoping it’ll only be an adjustment phase but this is the most challenging my career has been in over a decade.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really don't think that's how it works. Smart, experienced developers who thought coding agents were junk for most of 2025 and think they're useful now in 2026 are not saying that because they got "worn down over time".
It tends to be when the training data wanders into their area of expertise temporarily and they go “OMG, they hype is real. I was so wrong” and then a few releases later they’re on the train and furious that the skills in their domain space have not just stopped improving, but regressed. Cue someone else in a different part of the world starting the same cycle. Meanwhile the guy who leaned in a year ago and gave up r…
You should stop using social media as your yardstick.
I doubt we're unique. Chat bots are useful. But it will take years, possibly decades for work to transform to due to AI. Probably longer for everyday life. The diffusion of new technology, even something as profound as AI, has to fight the friction and realities of the real world. Always has.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I’m probably illustrating your point but as a FSD fan Half-and-half. I'm not denying that self driving cars (and LLMs) are improving, I'm comparing it against the standards set by the biggest proponents. But yes, I have heard basically the same thing you just wrote for the previous several major releases of FSD. Where we agree is that, while you are a fan, you do explicitly give as an example of something you think…
What matters is the benefit it affords to drivers, not what "biggest proponents" say. Elon got overly excited in 2016, but for my day to day usage, I don't need it to self-charge on a drive across the country to get me. I need it to safely drive my family on my daily errands or weekend trips, which I now consider solved. I'm mentally prepared for the next US administration to exact retribution on his companies, and I…
Yes. He was before and remains so to this day, but he did so then, too.
> I need it to safely drive my family on my daily errands or weekend trips, which I now consider solved.
This is probably unwise. As with LLMs, the statistics suggest a spikiness in the intelligence, with it being mostly good but also sometimes still making some very odd mistakes that humans would essentially never make.
As with your other comment, you know that if it gets into a crash you're responsible; while you consider this a win, I suggest waiting until the company you buy the car from (in this case Tesla) puts their money where their mouth is on quality and takes liability for crashes due to the AI upon themselves.
(The Cybercab was supposed to be sans-steering-wheel and sans-pedals, which would be a sign of that level of confidence, but the ones spotted in the wild at least sometimes seem to come with the wheel, which suggests they're still not there yet: https://www.vehiclesuggest.com/cybercab-with-steering-wheel-... https://www.carsguide.com.au/car-news/real-tesla-cybercab-sp...)
> Hopefully other car companies are able to catch up.
From the stats I've seen, they're much closer to the goal, relatively smoother/less spiky all-round driving intelligence. They may not be as impressive at their best, but when they fail the failure modes are themselves much safer.
I find that productivity follows a Pareto distribution (80:20 rule) and that AI is a sharper tool in that it enables the already productive to be proportionally more productive and this effect increases as the intelligence of AI increases. So 80:20 becomes a 90:10, 95:5, 99:1 etc. I also think that corporate bureaucratic change is laggy so change there will still be rather slow. I think where change will be rapid is…
> so there will be a displacement of medium to large companies by much smaller ones. There are so many regulations EE companies follow and offer that no startup owner or worker could ever deal with. The moment your company shifts to that sort of work, you're automatically not anymore a startup (by definition). Only if you get super smart robots that can manage a lot of bureaucracy etc. Starting from multicloud/region…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which of my blog entries contradict what I said here?
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They cut out the peaky-peak (16%), and then fit a time-lagged smoother, it looks like. The dots are more like bls.
Ah, you’re right.. the dots! I still don’t understand why the smoothing makes covid symmetric when the underlying data is asymmetric. A too-large smoothing window, I guess. They must have been trying to smooth out the seasonal job unemployment rates for the labor-heavy jobs.
I open this discussion thread and literally the first two top-level comments I see contradict each other: > I find that productivity follows a Pareto distribution (80:20 rule) and that AI is a sharper tool in that it enables the already productive to be proportionally more productive and this effect increases as the intelligence of AI increases. So 80:20 becomes a 90:10, 95:5, 99:1 etc. > Big caveat to the productivi…
That is not the most absurd, the most absurd is people here thinking faster ( and yes I avoid the word better ) code generator engines will solve humanity problems.
I open this discussion thread and literally the first two top-level comments I see contradict each other: > I find that productivity follows a Pareto distribution (80:20 rule) and that AI is a sharper tool in that it enables the already productive to be proportionally more productive and this effect increases as the intelligence of AI increases. So 80:20 becomes a 90:10, 95:5, 99:1 etc. > Big caveat to the productivi…
If you're finding it hinders, you're using it wrong. Terrence Tao is living proof, that it cannot hinder even the most elite. There's always something you can do with it.
In an enterprise, everyone gets to use LLMs. Everyone can create slop. In an enterprise environment, this can lead to weird situations where the senior has to put in extra efforts to contain the slop of others... so I can kind of see where the "hinders seniors" is coming from.