491–500 of 558 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This jives with what I've experienced Just as an fyi, the word you are looking for is jibes. Jive is something else entirely.
The only thing worse than complaining about this is being the guy complaining about the guy complaining about this. So congratulations on being second most annoying.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We've got a rather extensive AI setup through our equity fund and I've setup a group of agents for data architecture at scale. One is the main agent I discuss with and it's setup to know our infrastructure and has access to image generation tools, websearch, hand off agents and other things. I tend to use Opus (4-6 currently) and I find it to be rather great. As you point out it comes with the danger of making mistak…
Are you using this agent hive for any repeatable tasks? What you described, superficially, seems like a one off. Genuinely curious.
I don't usually go back to the original prompt. I've actually done it a few times in regards to the presentation, to get some refined images but usually I'll start a new prompt.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could you win an F1 race with the latest winning car against F1 drivers?
I'm not sure I understood your question. Literally, of course not, but how does it relate to my points? If I had a car 100 km/h faster on straights, after some training I would probably win Monza, but that would be a car that does not conform to F1 rules (or we would have that kind of speeds now) so that would not be a F1 race. Maybe your question is about the sharing of praise between the team and the driver. I thin…
If Terrence Tao finds a novel proof, I believe it's his exceptional aptitude that is to praise, whatever help he used.
Edit0:I would bet that a normal run of the mill random human would be likely to kill themselves racing (with actual intent) an F1 car.
Have a good one!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Training must start from the basics though. Of course everybody's training in math starts with summing small integers, which calculators have been doing without any mistake since a long time. Yeah, it's the same way with learning programming. LLMs can handle basic programming (and increasingly advanced programming) but I think it's necessary to write code by hand. As a beginner, of course, and arguably to maintain…
You only get good at the things you actually do. Our ancestors had to maintain a minimum level of fitness in order to be able to eat -- a level that most people today never reach, because the modern world has removed that need. Thinking is a skill just like any other, so what happens when people no longer have to exercise that skill to survive? It's a scary thought.
The map isn’t the territory; thinking about what to build is just as valid as thinking about how to build it. Architects aren’t carpenters, but that doesn’t mean there’s no value in architecture.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow you consider this on the same level of impressiveness as a compiler?
I actually consider compilers more impressive, and a compiler was an important part of making this possible.
I’m not sure I can get behind the “foundations are necessarily more impressive than edifices” view..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> by solving hard problems you get an insight into the problem-solving process itself, at least in your area of expertise, in a way that you simply don’t if all you do is read other people’s solutions. One consequence of this is that people who have themselves solved difficult problems are likely to be significantly better at using solving problems with the help of AI, just as very good coders are better at vibe codi…
Are you a cutting edge research scientist or something? Everyone I know works in the same domain every day. The problems are the same. People aren't solving brand new problems to humanity every day. We make budgets and look at ticket counts. Roll out patches. Replace hardware. Upgrade software packages. Make a new dashboard to track a project. I guess if every day is a completely novel thing for you, ok. I feel like…
I enjoy programming and want to be engaged for the 40 hours a week where I sell my labor.
I also care about my profession and technology, and I don't want the world to become an idiocracy where nobody understands any of the technology we're overly depedent upon.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think it matters much what kind of problem it is. If it is challenging enough to benefit from assistance and you end up playing a minor role in the solution, it seems like you are putting yourself in the worst position possible. You lose your edge for functioning within the problem space and it raises the question why you are even in the loop at all. If its job security you want, transforming your role into L…
Ok let's make math illegal and burn down the data centers I guess. Idk what to tell you, but we will adapt and new roles will be created. Just like every single tool and piece of tech that came before. LLM manager? Fine.
The thing about relying on the past to predict the future is that works ... until it doesn't.
We've yet to see a technology with as diverse utility as LLMs. What happens when not just the tech sector starts downsizing, but the whole white collar workforce?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You only get good at the things you actually do. Our ancestors had to maintain a minimum level of fitness in order to be able to eat -- a level that most people today never reach, because the modern world has removed that need. Thinking is a skill just like any other, so what happens when people no longer have to exercise that skill to survive? It's a scary thought.
Tools don’t eliminate work, they abstract and amplify work. Those who miss this point are doomed to become the folks who say “back in my day we walked to school in the snow, uphill both ways”. The map isn’t the territory; thinking about what to build is just as valid as thinking about how to build it. Architects aren’t carpenters, but that doesn’t mean there’s no value in architecture.
If this was the case, the demand for architects would be different than what see today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I actually consider compilers more impressive, and a compiler was an important part of making this possible.
To each their own. I mean compilers didn’t produce trillions of dollars of investment, and produce serious and profound philosophical questions about the nature of consciousness but you’re right, thank god we have C