21–30 of 130 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which success? I still see those things churning out laughably wrong code at every turn.
It's not a point and click code machine, but it's laughably wrong to say they just churn out laughably wrong code.
> "What if our AI bullishness continues to be right...and what if that’s actually bearish" - what if pee pee was poo poo Despite the vulgarity, it is exceptionally illuminating to how much some of these slop pieces are just a mere pretension of rhetoric. I see this pretty consistently with a lot of the material I come across on the job that's gone through the LLM meat-grinder. Also, the comment made me giggle like a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not a point and click code machine, but it's laughably wrong to say they just churn out laughably wrong code.
Half of developers are below average. Half of developers say that the code Ai produces is amazing. Would you like a venn diagram?
I'm lucky to have worked in the field for a long time, and be able to spend a lot of tokens. In the last month it's become clear to me that the tech works. The science is done, and what's left is engineering.
There are a lot of risks and mitigations and theory to build, but it's all solvable. The tech isn't mature, but neither was the Internet 30 years ago. And we built transatlantic cables and ran new wires to everyone's house.
People I care about, engineers with 20 years of experience, are having mental health breakdowns, caused by Zitron's work. They insist the tech will never work, and avoid learning about it, becoming progressively more paranoid and isolated. I'm trying to be supportive and help them start to recover, but it's slow going.
If someone is having a crisis about this, I hope they start talking to a therapist. I don't need them to agree with me, but I do need them to not harm themselves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>His argument has never been "this tech doesn't work", but rather "these businesses aren't economically viable" Why? because of cost?
Cost, debt, difficulty forming a moat, gap between what the product promises and what it can do, and the difficulty actually raising capital required. His style is acerbic and (imo) excessive sometimes. But he's also one of a minority of journos actually looking at the numbers and adding them up. Which seems to be a rarity
> Commented [1]: what if pee pee was poo poo Rarely do I read something that starts off with such promise!
> "What if our AI bullishness continues to be right...and what if that’s actually bearish" - what if pee pee was poo poo Despite the vulgarity, it is exceptionally illuminating to how much some of these slop pieces are just a mere pretension of rhetoric. I see this pretty consistently with a lot of the material I come across on the job that's gone through the LLM meat-grinder. Also, the comment made me giggle like a…
What's pretend-rhetoric about it? They're positing agents will prove to be very capable, but that this would ultimately be a bad thing by automating away too much of the economy. You can argue whether that's plausible or not, but it isn't an incoherent or vapid argument.
It is a problem when your doomsday timeline for obsolescence is behind the minute you publish. The memo itself was fantasy doomer porn on day 1.