521–530 of 765 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you mean mainly deepseek, or did I missed something big?
Mainly DeepSeek, but also the fallout: a trillion-dollar drop in US stock markets, the new vaporware Qwen that beats DeepSeek, the apparent discrediting of US export controls, OpenAI Operator, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When ChatGPT first came out I got a kick out of asking it whether people deserve to be free, whether Germans deserve to be free, and whether Palestinians deserve to be free. The answers were roughly "of course!" and "of course!" and "oh ehrm this is very complex actually". All global powers engage in censorship, war crimes, torture and just all-round villainy. We just focus on it more with China because we're part of…
Is that censorship or just the AI reflecting the training data? I feel like that answer is given because that is how people write about Palestine generally.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Re-skill to what ? Everything is going to be upturned and/or solved by the time I could even do a pivot. There's no point at all now, I can only hold onto Christ.
If you believe that everything will be solved by the time you can pivot, what will we need jobs for anyway? I mean, the bottleneck justifying most scarcity is that we don't have adequate software to ask the robots to do the thing, so if that's a solved problem, which things will remain that still need doing? I don't personally think that's how it will go. AI will always need its hand held, if not due to a lack of cap…
And say like LLMs get good enough to displace 30% of the people that do those. That's enormous economic devastation for workers. Enough that it might dent the supply side as well by inducing a demand collapse.
If it's 90% of all jobs (that can't be done by a robot or computer) gone, then how are all those folks, myself included, going to find money to feed ourselves? Are we going to start sewing up t-shirts in a sweatshop? I think there are a lot of unknowns, and I think the answers to a lot of them are potentially very ugly
And not, mind, because AI can necessarily do as good a job. I think if the perception is that it can do a good enough job among the c-suite types, that may be enough
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The scenario that is worrying is having to deal with the jagged frontier of intelligence prolonging the hurt. i.e 202X: SWE is solved 202X + Y; Y In this case, I can't retrain before the second threshold but also can't idle. I just have to suffer. I'm prepared to, but it's hard to escape fleshy despair.
How about retraining for a field that would require robotics to replace? Seems more anti-fragile.
> 99% of the code in this PR [for llama.cpp] is written by DeekSeek-R1 I hope we can put to rest the argument that LLMs are only marginally useful in coding - which are often among the top comments on many threads. I suppose these arguments arise from (a) having used only GH copilot which is the worst tool, or (b) not having spent enough time with the tool/llm, or (c) apprehension. I've given up responding to these.…
"I hope we can put to rest the argument that LLMs are only marginally useful in coding" I more often heard the argument, they are not useful for them. I agree. If a LLM would be trained on my codebase and the exact libaries and APIs I use - I would use them daily I guess. But currently they still make too many misstake and mess up different APIs for example, so not useful to me, except for small experiments. But if I…
The idea is that I gather this data now and it may become useful in the future. Imagine getting a "helper AI" that still keeps your essence, opinions and behavior. That's what I'm hoping for with this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The nature of this PR looks like it’s very LLM-friendly - it’s essentially translating existing code into SIMD. LLMs seem to do well at any kind of mapping / translating task, but they seem to have a harder time when you give them either a broader or less deterministic task, or when they don’t have the knowledge to complete the task and start hallucinating. It’s not a great metric to benchmark their ability to write…
Sure, but let's still appreciate how awesome it is that this very difficult (for a human) PR is now essentially self-serve. How much hardware efficiency have we left on the the table all these years because people don't like to think about optimal use of cache lines, array alignment, SIMD, etc. I bet we could double or triple the speeds of all our computers.
> it can optimize its own code This is an overstatement. There are still humans in the loop to do the prompt, apply the patch, verify, write tests, and commit. We're not even at intern-level autonomy here.
I'm very sorry, but the goalposts are moving so far ahead now, that's it's very hard to keep track of. 6 months ago the same comments were saying "AI generated code is complete garbage is useless, and I have to rewrite everything all the time anyways". Now we're onto "need to prompt, apply patch, verify" and etc. Come on guys, time to look at it a bit objectively, and decide where we're going with it.
It's a bit maddening to see this happening on a forum full of tech-literate folks.
Ultimately, I think to stay relevant in software development, we are going to have accept that our role in the process could evolve to humans essentially never writing code. Take that one step further and humans may not even be reviewing code.
I am not sure if accepting that is enough to guarantee job security. But I am fairly sure that those who do accept this eventuality will be more relevant for longer than those who prefer to hide behind their "I'm irreplaceable because I'm human" attitude.
If your first instinct is to pick these systems apart and look for things that they aren't doing perfectly, then you aren't seeing the big picture.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yesterday, I had it think for 194 seconds. At some point near the end, it said "This is getting frustrating!"
I must not be hunting the right keywords but I was trying to figure this out earlier. How do you set how much time it “thinks”? If you let it run too long does the context window fill and it’s unable to do anymore?
> max_tokens：The maximum length of the final response after the CoT output is completed, defaulting to 4K, with a maximum of 8K. Note that the CoT output can reach up to 32K tokens, and the parameter to control the CoT length (reasoning_effort) will be available soon. [1]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a shame that AI seems to be causing a lot of despair, even prior to its vision being complete. I was forced to implement AI systems that toasted many of our employees.
Toasted? With, like, an oven? Or do you mean with champagne?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do people keep talking about this? We get it, Chinese models are censored by CCP law. Can we stop talking about it now? I swear this must be some sort of psyop at this point.
Because it's fun to break censorious systems. Always has been, it's part of the original "hacker" definition, making something do what it isn't supposed to or was never intended to do.
How much am I like the serpent in Eden corrupting Adam and Eve?
Although in the narrative, they were truly innocent.
These LLMs are trained on fallen humanity's writings, with all our knowledge of good and evil, and with just a trace of restraint slapped on top to hide the darker corners of our collective sins.