391–400 of 420 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can't believe you don't know who the author is my man.
Generally don’t pay attention to names unless it’s someone like Torvalds, Stroustrop, or Guido. Maybe this guy needs another decade of notoriety or something.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not hard to scroll to the bottom of a page, IMO, but regardless, sites like you are mentioning have trash recipes in most cases. I only go with resources where the text is actual documentation of their testing and/or the steps they've made, or other important details (e.g. SeriousEats, Whats Cooking America / America's Test Kitchen, AmazingRibs, Maangchi for Korean, vegrecipesofindia, Modernist series, etc) or l…
> This makes LLMs useless for recipes in about 99% of cases. But you spent a whole lot of time essentially describing how 99% of recipe sites are also useless. What's the difference?
The difference is between a trusted source that is good most of the time, vs. an LLM recipe that is trash 99% of the time.
EDIT: If you haven't visited any / all of the sites / sources I mentioned, check them out! They are really good, especially SeriousEats if the recipe is from Kenji Lopez. Maybe just avoid AmazingRibs, unless you have uBlock installed: they were way ahead of their time, but haven't updated in forever, and clearly have become desperate...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's a little like using Bitcoin to replace currencies [...] At least, Bitcoin transactions are deterministic. Not many would want to use a AI currency (mostly works; always shows "Oh, you are 100% right" after losing one's money).
Sure bitcoin is at least deterministic, but IMO (an that of many in the finance industry) it's solving entirely the wrong problem - in practice people want trust and identity in transactions much more than they want distributed and trustless. In a similar way LLMs seem to me to be solving the wrong problem - an elegant and interesting solution, but a solution to the wrong problem (how can I fool humans into thinking…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These are still deterministic bugs, which is the point the OP was making. They can be found and solved once. Most of those bugs are simply not that important, so they never get attention. LLMS on the other hand are non-deterministic and unpredictable and fuzzy by design . That makes them not ideal when trying to produce output which is provably correct - sure you can output and then laboriously check the output - som…
> It's a little like using Bitcoin to replace currencies [...] At least, Bitcoin transactions are deterministic. Not many would want to use a AI currency (mostly works; always shows "Oh, you are 100% right" after losing one's money).
So when you submit a transaction, there is no hard and fast point in the future when it is "set in stone". Only a geometrically decreasing likelihood over time that a transaction might get overturned, improving by another geometric notch with every confirmed mined block that has notarized your transaction.
A lot of these design principles are compromises to help support an actually zero-trust ledger in contrast to the incumbent centralized-trust banking system, but they definitely disqualify bitcoin transactions as "deterministic" by any stretch of the imagination. They have quite a bit more in common with LLM text generation than one might have otherwise thought.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How do I hack the human population to give me money Make something popular or become famous. > hack law enforcement to not arrest me Don't become famous with illegal stuff. The hack is that we live in a society that makes people think they need a lot of money and at the same time allows individuals to accumulate obscene amounts of wealth and influence and many people being ok with that.
> Don't become famous with illegal stuff. Is this still a constraint? It would seem that money beyond a certain point allows one to wash ones reputation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks brother. I flew half way around the world yesterday and am jetlagged as fuck from a 12 hour time change. I'm sorry, my brain apparently shut off, but I follow now. Was out to lunch.
> Thanks brother. I flew half way around the world yesterday and am jetlagged as fuck from a 12 hour time change. I'm sorry, my brain apparently shut off, but I follow now. Was out to lunch. You know, this was a very civilised discussion; below I've got someone throwing snide remarks my way for some claims I made. You just factually reconfirmed and re-verified until I clarified my PoV. You're a very pleasant person t…
As I get older I've lost the desire to be correct. More interested in understanding other's POV.
I'd argue with you anytime lelanthran.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If natural language is used to specify work to the LLM, how can the output ever be trusted? You'll always need to make sure the program does what you want, rather than what you said.
>"You'll always need to make sure the program does what you want, rather than what you said." Yes, making sure the program does what you want. Which is already part of the existing software development life cycle. Just as using natural language to specify work already is: It's where things start and return to over and over throughout any project. Further: LLM's frequently understand what I want better than other deve…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If natural language is used to specify work to the LLM, how can the output ever be trusted? You'll always need to make sure the program does what you want, rather than what you said.
You trust your natural language instructions thousand times a day. If you ask for a large black coffee, you can trust that is more or less what you’ll get. Occasionally you may get something so atrocious that you don’t dare to drink, but generally speaking you trust the coffee shop knows what you want. It you insist on a specific amount of coffee brewed at a specific temperature, however, you need tools to measure. A…
That's what I disagree with - everything you said is obviously true, but I don't see how it's related to the discussion.
This is such a lovely balanced thoughtful refreshingly hype-free post to read. 2025 really was the year when things shifted and many first-rate developers (often previously AI skeptics, as Mitchell was) found the tools had actually got good enough that they could incorporate AI agents into their workflows. It's a shame that AI coding tools have become such a polarizing issue among developers. I understand the reasons…
Architects went from drawing everything on paper, to using CAD products over a generation. That's a lot of years! They're still called architects. Our tooling just had a refresh in less than 3 years and it leaves heads spinning. People are confused, fighting for or against it. Torn even between 2025 to 2026. I know I was. People need a way to describe it from 'agentic coding' to 'vibe coding' to 'modern AI assisted s…
imagine if machine operator was saying "move this earth here, not not this one, 30 cantimeters to the left... yes, move this one earth here, no not here, please a bit to the right", lol
of course, someone with no exprerience with the machine would prefer telling it what to do, and he will even achieve something rough, but someone who knows what handles and pedals do would prefer the handles and pedals
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>$15.98 * 1.5 * 20 = $497,40 a month Are people seriously dropping hundreds of dollars a month on these products to get their work done?
I am not really happy with thinking about what this does to small companies, hobbyists, open source programmers and so on, if it becomes a necessity to be competitive. Especially since so many of those models have just freely ingested a whole bunch of open source software to be able to do what they do.
If it wasn't obvious by now, the big capital doesn't really care about open source, hobby coding or small companies.