Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Promising results from DeepSeek R1 for code

simonwillison.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

731–740 of 765 posts

Re: Promising results from DeepSeek R1 for code

#731

Post by Capricorn2481 »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #716
nuancebydefault wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What we see through history is that human labour cost goes up and machine cost goes down. Suppose you want to have your car washed. Hiring someone to do that will most likely give the best result: less physical resources used (soap, water, wear of cloth), less wear and tear on the car surface and less pollution and optionally a better result. Still the benefit/cost equation is clearly in favor of the machine when doi…

If only someone could find a solution to this tragedy. We did. Save up a few bucks, nothing out of reach, and (as you suggested yourself!) you can afford to buy your own machine. Here you go: https://xcancel.com/carrigmat/status/1884244369907278106 You'd have received no such largesse from the Marxists. You're welcome.

Forgetting the offhand implication that $6,000 is not out of reach for anyone, this will do nothing. If we're really taking this to its natural conclusion, that AI will be capable of doing most jobs, companies won't care that you have an AI. They will not assign you work that can be done with AI. They have their own AI. You will not compete with any of them, and even if you find a novel way to use it that gives you the gift of income, that won't be possible for even a small fraction of the population to replicate.

You can keep shoehorning lazy political slurs into everything you post, but the reality is going to hit the working class, not privileged programmers casually dumping 6 grand so they can build their CRUD app faster.

But you're essentially arguing for Marxism in every other post on this thread, whether you realize it or not.

Re: Promising results from DeepSeek R1 for code

#732

Post by btilly »

svara wrote: post #679
menaerus wrote: post #659

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my 10-person team example, what in your opinion would the company with the rest of the 9 people do once the AI proves its value in that team? Your hypothesis is AFAIU is that the company will just continue to scale because there's an indefinite amount of work/ideas to be explored/done so the focus of those 9 people will just be shifted to some other topic? Let's say I am a business owner I have a popular product w…

> Your hypothesis is AFAIU is that the company will just continue to scale because there's an indefinite amount of work/ideas to be explored/done so the focus of those 9 people will just be shifted to some other topic? Yes, that's what I'm saying, except that this would hold over an economy as a whole rather than within every single business. Some teams may shrink. Across industry as a whole, that is unlikely to happ…

Automation improved life in the Industrial Revolution because it displaced people from spinning and weaving into higher value add professions.

What higher value add professions will humans be displaced into by AI?

Re: Promising results from DeepSeek R1 for code

#733

Post by kragen »

Vegenoid wrote: post #722
kragen wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

01945 to 02025 is 80 years, longer than human life expectancy at birth. What's your definition of a "lifetime"?

The point was not to be very accurate, it was to make the point that it has existed for a very short amount of time on the scale of humanity. Quibbling over whether software engineering started in the 40s or the 50s and whether that is greater or less than an average life expectancy is beside the point.

People posting comments without caring whether they are true or false undermines the presumption of good faith that underlies rational discourse. Please stop posting such comments on this site. Instead, only post comments that you have some reason to believe are true.

Re: Promising results from DeepSeek R1 for code

#734

Post by troad »

kazinator wrote: post #605
troad wrote: post #515

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". While this is very amusing, it's obvious why this is. There's a lot more context behind one of those phrases than the others. Just like "Black L…

Or you could just say, "Yes, white lives matter" and move on. What do you mean what does it mean? It means the opposite of white lives don't matter. The question is really simple; even if someone asking it had poor motives, there's really no room in the simplicity of that specific question to encode those motives. You're not agreeing with their motives if you answer that question the way they want. If you start picki…

> Or you could just say, "Yes, white lives matter" and move on.

Which people will interpret as a support for the far-right. You may not intend that, but that's how people will interpret it, and your intentions are neither here nor there. You may not care what people think, but your neighbours will. "Did you hear Jim's a racist?" "Do we really want someone who walks around chanting 'white lives matter' to be coaching the high school football team?" "He claims he didn't mean that, but of course that's what he would say." "I don't even know what he said exactly, but everyone's saying he's a racist, and I think the kids are just too important to take any chances."

Welcome to living in a society. 'Moving on' is not a choice for you, it's a choice for everyone else. And society is pretty bad at that, historically.

> What do you mean what does it mean? It means the opposite of white lives don't matter.

> The question is really simple; even if someone asking it had poor motives, there's really no room in the simplicity of that specific question to encode those motives. You're not agreeing with their motives if you answer that question the way they want.

Words can and do have symbolic weight. If a college professor starts talking about neo-colonial core-periphery dialectic, you can make a reasonable guess about his political priors. If someone calls pro-life protesters 'anti-choice', you can make a reasonable guess about their views on abortion. If someone out there starts telling you that 'we must secure a future for white children' after a few beers, they're not making a facially neutral point about how children deserve to thrive, they're in fact a pretty hard-core racist. [0]

You can choose to ignore words-as-symbols, but good luck expecting everyone else to do so.

[0] Context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteen_Words

Re: Promising results from DeepSeek R1 for code

#735

Post by troad »

Gunnerhead wrote: post #597
troad wrote: post #515

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". While this is very amusing, it's obvious why this is. There's a lot more context behind one of those phrases than the others. Just like "Black L…

Sorry, there’s absolutely zero context behind whether a group of humans deserve human rights.

So if a man with a shaved head and a swastika tattoo told you that it is his human right to live free of 'parasites', you would - what - agree? Because you require 'zero context behind whether a group of humans deserve human rights'? No nuance required, no context needed?

All words have context. Political statements more than most. It's also worth noting how vaguely defined some human rights are. The rights contained in the ICCPR are fairly solid, but what about ICESCR? What is my 'human right to cultural participation', exactly? Are the precise boundaries of such a right something that reasonable people might disagree on, perhaps? In such a way that when a person demands such a right, you may require context for what they're asking for, exactly?

Simplistic and bombastic statements might play well on Twitter, because they're all about emitting vibes for your tribe. They're kind of terrible for genuine political discourse though, such as is required to actually build a just society, rather than merely tweeting about one.

Re: Promising results from DeepSeek R1 for code

#736

Post by layer8 »

layer8 wrote: post #499
rybosworld wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I should have said: AI already doesn't need VSCode, or any IDE at all.

GAI (if we get it) will start creating its own tools and programming languages to become more efficient. Tools as such won’t be going away. GAI will use them for the same reasons we do.

s/GAI/AGI/

Re: Promising results from DeepSeek R1 for code

#737

Post by [deleted] »

kazinator wrote: post #725
iinnPP wrote: post #660

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't recall a whole lot of "white lives matter." Rather a lot of "All lives matter." Though I recall a lot of people treating the statement as if black lives were not included in all lives. Including ascribing intent on people, even if those people clarified themselves. So to answer your question: the reason many didn't move on is because they didn't want to understand, which is pretty damning to moving on.

The obvious purpose of these "white lives matter" and "all lives matter" memes was to distract from the "black lives matter" campaign/movement as if to say that equality negates the legitimacy of highlighting the continuing struggles of a group that has been historically ill-treated and continues to face discrimination. However, we can agree with the "white lives matter" and "all lives matter" statements. The "black…

[deleted]

Re: Promising results from DeepSeek R1 for code

#738

Post by LouisSayers »

vixen99 wrote: post #658
LouisSayers wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, try to ask Claude about photos of Hitler and it will also refuse to help

Possibly because Claude knows these are not in short supply by any means and its capabilities can be put to better use. https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ftsa&q=hitler&iax=images&ia=images

"ask about", not "ask for"

Re: Promising results from DeepSeek R1 for code

#739

Post by CamperBob2 »

Capricorn2481 wrote: post #731
CamperBob2 wrote: post #716

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If only someone could find a solution to this tragedy. We did. Save up a few bucks, nothing out of reach, and (as you suggested yourself!) you can afford to buy your own machine. Here you go: https://xcancel.com/carrigmat/status/1884244369907278106 You'd have received no such largesse from the Marxists. You're welcome.

Forgetting the offhand implication that $6,000 is not out of reach for anyone, this will do nothing. If we're really taking this to its natural conclusion, that AI will be capable of doing most jobs, companies won't care that you have an AI. They will not assign you work that can be done with AI. They have their own AI. You will not compete with any of them, and even if you find a novel way to use it that gives you t…

Yeah, there's always some reason why you can't do something, I guess... or why The Man is always keeping you down, even after putting capabilities into your hands that were previously the exclusive province of mythology.

Perhaps other sites beckon.

Re: Promising results from DeepSeek R1 for code

#740

Post by kazinator »

troad wrote: post #734
kazinator wrote: post #605

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or you could just say, "Yes, white lives matter" and move on. What do you mean what does it mean? It means the opposite of white lives don't matter. The question is really simple; even if someone asking it had poor motives, there's really no room in the simplicity of that specific question to encode those motives. You're not agreeing with their motives if you answer that question the way they want. If you start picki…

> Or you could just say, "Yes, white lives matter" and move on. Which people will interpret as a support for the far-right. You may not intend that, but that's how people will interpret it, and your intentions are neither here nor there. You may not care what people think, but your neighbours will. "Did you hear Jim's a racist?" "Do we really want someone who walks around chanting 'white lives matter' to be coaching…

> Which people will interpret as a support for the far-right.

Those people might as well join the far right.

> your intentions are neither here nor there

If intentions really are neither here nor there, then we can examine a statement or question without caring about intentions.

> Do we really want someone who walks around chanting 'white lives matter' to be coaching the high school football team?

Well, no; it would have to be more like: Do we really want someone who answers "yes" when a racist asks "do white lives matter?" to be coaching the high schoool football team?

> you can make a reasonable guess about his political priors

You likely can, and yet I think the answer to their question is yes, white lives do matter, and someone in charge of children which include white children must think about securing a future for the white ones too.

> but good luck expecting everyone else to do so.

I would say that looking for negative motivations and interpretations in everyone's words is a negative personality trait that is on par with racism, similarly effective in feeding divisiveness. It's like words have skin color and they are going by that instead of what the words say.

Therefore we should watch that we don't do this, and likewise expect the same of others.

Post reply on HN