9 ms·

I could go on and on, but Claude recently decompiled the firmware of my camper van, documented all the CAN interfaces, then programmed an ESP32 module to talk t

I could go on and on, but Claude recently decompiled the firmware of my camper van, documented all the CAN interfaces, then programmed an ESP32 module to talk to the van’s integrated systems (power, HVAC, lighting, tanks). That sort of embedded systems integration is completely out of my wheelhouse. I honestly don’t understand AI naysayers. I use Claude every day both professionally as a Solution Architect and personally in a variety of projects I simply could not have ever approached alone.

rvnx 4mo ago
[flagged]
- jazzyjackson 4mo ago
  I’ll explain it: these tools are non-deterministic and people have different experiences with them. For a few people every interaction is totally fumbled and they think the cheerleaders of gen AI must be lying, for others the chatbot hits one home run after another and lets them add microcontrollers to their CAN bus. When these people’s good luck runs out and they start getting mixed results like the average user, they assert the service must have been down graded
  - dyauspitr 4mo ago
    I still don’t get it I can dictate a prompt and sometimes I do it so quickly the text looks like a drunken parrot dictated it and it still always gets exactly what I’m asking for. I’m just going to attribute malice to the naysayers.
    - bonoboTP 4mo ago
      Some people are really bad at specifying what they want to ask for. Or they already start prompting with the attitude that it can't possibly work so they don't even really try, or stop at the first failure to point and say how bad it is.
      - thewebguyd 4mo ago
        People are really, really bad at specifying what they actually want. I've worked in IT for my whole career, starting in help desk (now an IT manager). My days in the service desk was enough proof that people have no idea what they actually want, or at least, they really struggle to articulate it into words. It's the famous "email broken, fix pls" but in the form of an LLM prompt.
        rvnx 4mo ago
        Similarly, doing service desk, the thing that makes me flip the table is how people start by explaining what does not work, instead of explaining what they are trying to do.
        bonoboTP 4mo ago
        It's hard even at the highest levels, such as in writing scientific papers or doing scientific conference talks. People just generally have a hard time to step outside of their context and think with the head of someone who has a different set of facts and assumptions in their context. It's hard to know how much context you both share, and how to tailor the explanation so you also don't start from Adam and Eve but you explain just enough context and strip irrelevant tangents. I don't think this is just about intention and willingness, it's just simply hard.
        bonoboTP 4mo ago
        Well, today's multimodal llm agents with tools would at least have a good chance to do something with even such an underspecified query. Because fixing things is simpler to specify, the agent could look at config, network settings, send a test email, take a screenshot etc and get a good idea of what's broken. But when you want some new feature or new app, you can't do without actually asking for specifics, or at least you shouldn't complain if it didn't read your mind correctly. Or at least accept that you have to iterate. I think many average people can get this if they are motivated, and they can incrementally say what they don't like even in vague terms and it can get better. But some just stop without trying to ask for changes. It can be frustrating to observe people interacting with these things. But it was just as frustrating 20 years ago, so maybe it's just a constant.
  - triMichael 4mo ago
    I'll add to that: you are more likely to have a good experience if it has a lot of relevant data that it was trained on. You are also more likely to have a good experience if errors don't cause major issues. So one-shotting a game of Snake should be great (tons of training data, errors are easily caught because it's a small program). Similar with building a lot of web UI front end, or one-shotting a personal project. On the other hand, I haven't been convinced that it's good enough to maintain large codebases or assist with niche topics that are not very well documented.
    - lowbloodsugar 4mo ago
      > On the other hand, I haven't been convinced that it's good enough to maintain large codebases or assist with niche topics that are not very well documented. Same is true of humans. So far my experience is that addressing the issue with the help of AI is faster than not (ie comprehending the system and creating the documentation).
      - cauch 4mo ago
        I don't understand the comments of the kind of "same is true with human". This feels a bit like whataboutism. It also feels like people don't listen to each others. For example, reading the previous comment, it feels like the thing that reduce the enthusiasm was that at first GenAI looks like it was "reading, understanding and using its own knowledge to answer the problem", but as soon as it is a ore niche or a more complex situation, GenAI looks like it "does not understand the code, just does the equivalent of a StackOverflow search and try to apply the solutions that it found there, and this is why it felt like it understood the code before". It does not at all means that GenAI is not terribly useful. And even better than humans in some situations. But it feels that answering "same with humans" is missing this point: that's the opposite, humans usually try to understand the code and are bad at covering a very large range of very well documented subjects. That's the "uncanny valley" they talk about: they assumed GenAI performance on a subject X is due to a "human-like" approach, and it feels very strange when this impression falls apart.
        4mo ago
- camel_gopher 4mo ago
  It’s a probabilistic parrot
  - foobarbecue 4mo ago
    What's the difference (stochastic vs probabilistic)? Or... were you illustrating?
- amelius 4mo ago
  I still would like to hear a public apology from the stochastic parrot crowd for their deceptive framing. Or maybe it was just incompetence.
  - trumpdong 4mo ago
    "everyone who doesn't share my opinion is deceptive or maybe incompetent"
archagon 4mo ago
[flagged]
- donkey_brains 4mo ago
  Just as bad as the technical debt is the cognitive debt in your codebase. When something breaks, your only recourse is to ask the AI how to fix it, since it wrote it and you did not have time to review all of its code. Except now the code base is so large it won’t fit into the context window, and the AI can’t help you, and…you’re screwed.
  - shmoogy 4mo ago
    If you're vibing such complex things you should probably be in the habit of also generating detailed documentation and commits so the ai can follow breadcrumbs, add some playbooks for how to debug and it's actually pretty good. Too complex for local models context though - so you're probably still correct albeit there are ways to mitigate or delay this.
    - jplusequalt 4mo ago
      >there are ways to mitigate or delay this. Yeah, like writing the code yourself!
williamdclt 4mo ago
> projects I simply could not have ever approached alone. I think that's part of the divide between enthusiasts and naysayers. If you use GenAI on things that you couldn't approach alone, it's an incredible tool. If you use it on stuff that you're pretty good at, it's not a gamechanger (and if you're an expert, it's a minor boost at best). Many people's job are about doing what they're an expert at.
- dawnerd 4mo ago
  And in a team setting it can really accelerate tech debt especially if used by people that know just enough to be dangerous.
- LouisSayers 4mo ago
  I find it's a huge boost for my day-to-day work. If you work on architecture and Claude docs, then you can essentially just have it fill in the gaps. Work then mostly becomes a matter of defining what the next piece of functionality is (which you can also use Claude to help with). The stuff that used to take days now takes hours. It's not perfect, but if you get your codebase into a good shape then the payoff is huge.
  - mattmanser 4mo ago
    I re-read something I did 6 months ago doing this. It's so obviously AI and had much less value than I thought now I look at it with fresh eyes. Worse it doesn't read like I wrote it, I don't recognize myself in the doc.
- bawolff 4mo ago
  I think part of it is we often notice bad AI usage. The llm generated "art" by someone with bad taste, or the patches to open source projects by people who cant program at all and are teerrible. If the use is half decent people just dont notice it.
  - tstrimple 4mo ago
    Anti-AI zealots (from a practical usability position. Not necessarily the moral ones) are like the people who looked at The Daily WTF and decided no humans are capable of programming. They had plenty of examples to point at, but refuse to look at decent to great programmers. The stories of "The AI deleted my database!" are prevalent and boosted by these folks because it confirms their biases. It literally doesn't matter if the LLM wrote strong warnings about the action about to be taken. They don't see that aspect of it. Just the fact that someone claims "The AI deleted my database!" is enough for them. Despite all the liars telling me gaming is easier on Linux than Windows, most new games have some sort of issues launching with default settings. CC is able to dive into both the exact error logs and the recent community feedback on what tweaks / configurations are needed to make it work. I rarely have to go beyond two prompts before a game is playable. CC and Proton are enabling the Linux gaming experience far more than Linus ever has or ever was interested in.
jesse_dot_id 4mo ago
Same. I'm a DevOps engineer, so a jack of all trades master of none type of guy, and Claude Code backfills my knowledge gaps and turns me into kind of a superhero. I think it's key to already have a pretty good idea of what you're looking at, though.
doctorwho42 4mo ago
Maybe because the scale of investment out strips the value? What trillion dollar problem is AI solving?
- fragmede 4mo ago
  If you're going to put it that way, companies, globally, spend something on the order of $20 trillion on office workers. If corporations didn't have to spend that money on them, and everything else in order to support them, they wouldn't.
  - luckystarr 4mo ago
    Then the workers wouldn't spend 20 trillion and the economy as a whole would tank.
jplusequalt 4mo ago
>projects I simply could not have ever approached alone. Learned helplessness.
- dang 3mo ago
  That's not fair. It often has to do with limits of time and energy. There are countless things one would do if it took a few hours, but which one doesn't have a few days to spend on.
zahlman 4mo ago
A lot of the time people relate an anecdote about how Claude helped do some cool thing, my reaction is that it's not a thing I would have thought about doing in the first place, and that I still can't really imagine wanting to do myself, even though it indeed sounds cool. This is no exception.
- sntran 3mo ago
  You will be surprised that there are lots of things you want to do yourself but haven't been able to (not just ability, but time and effort).
thih9 3mo ago
> I honestly don’t understand AI naysayers. As an AI naysayer, I see and appreciate the productivity gains, I don’t like the associated cost, mostly the spike in workflow centralization and opaqueness.
- regisb 3mo ago
  Yes and I'd like to talk about the environmental impact as well please.
  - Schiendelman 3mo ago
    I can do things at least 10 times as fast as coding myself now. I'm pretty sure the environmental impact is, frankly, a reduction. My home computer (and feeding myself) for 10 times the time is more than I'm burning in a data center using an LLM.
    - hexasquid 3mo ago
      Indeed. I often see comments on the ethics and water/energy consumption of AI, but very few for non-vegan* developers boiling water for their coffees in air conditioned offices that require a commute, which I assume is a common default. *blue-water usage of a burger patty is worth looking up, I was astonished
      - regisb 3mo ago
        I assume you mean car commute, right? I don't know about the US but in France (or Europe) the environmental impact of air conditioning, car driving and meat consumption is well understood by most educated people.
    - regisb 3mo ago
      I'm not sure I understand. You realise that our token consumption in coming on top of our other energy/water consumption right? Also, the environmental impact might be small if we run a small number of inference queries every day, but that impact will grow linearly with the number of queries and agents we run.
erikerikson 3mo ago
I am more of a "huh, interesting demo, I'm gonna check in on it later" sayer than a naysayer. My biggest reason, with coding, is that I already, before AI, struggled to deal with too many distractions from my coding and too many piles of low quality output. I should probably check in since it's been a bit but every time I've tried to generate some simple project, I look through it and think what terrible garbage with so many errors. After two decades of developing my craft, I struggled with most of my fellow human programmers too. The business loves delivery it now even if then someone is revisiting it hundreds of times more to fix it in little bits for a total effort cost of 10-100 (or higher) times more.
yuppiepuppie 3mo ago
Any docs/suggestions on how to do this? Would love to do it with my campervan as well :)
Frost1x 3mo ago
My opinion is that it’s a defensive mechanism. I’ve seen it across experts in knowledge domains and my own. When you hear experts disagree it’s fine because it’s another human, when the LLM disagrees and provides an objective backing that’s often solid, people jump to defense and look for very subtle nuances they wouldn’t bring up with peers and those subtleties are often highly subjective and arguably often incorrect. That’s been my observation. I for one welcome our new LLM overlords so long as some provide be solid living standards. Mistakes do happen and they aren’t perfect so experts often do have arguments but they do come stupidly close to approximation of expertise.
bah9 3mo ago
Because work just became unfun. You are context provider to LLM. What is exactly your work? Give context to llm, review, update context. Navigating some sort of super intelligence thru your company's harness is not the same as writing code and creating ideas from scratch. And I don't understand what's fun in that Yes, you can ship software faster, make corporation even more money. Why is this even important for regular worker? I liked the craft itself
IAmGraydon 3mo ago
>I could go on and on, but Claude recently decompiled the firmware of my camper van, documented all the CAN interfaces, then programmed an ESP32 module to talk to the van’s integrated systems (power, HVAC, lighting, tanks). That sort of embedded systems integration is completely out of my wheelhouse. Can you tell me a bit more about the firmware/camper van? Has this firmware been decompiled by anyone else?
boppo1 3mo ago
I know Anthropic has blocks on using Claude for security reasearch; Are they not blocking Reverse engineering or RE tools?
- Bawoosette 3mo ago
  From my experience, the safeguards only come up during exploit development. You are free to do reverse engineering and even the first half of vulnerability research (i.e. vulnerability discovery) and it only stops once you want it to actually write the exploit.
1ste 3mo ago
I'm interested to hear how you use it as a SA
naikrovek 3mo ago
> I honestly don’t understand AI naysayers. If you are describing someone that wants things to be done, then I agree with you. If you are describing someone that wants to learn things and do the fixing themselves, then I don't understand how you could say that. For a lot of us, the learning and the mistakes and the eventual fixing of a thing or completion of a project is the goal. Us doing the work is the reward function. AI strips that off and simply finishes the project, removing any and all incentive for the person involved, if they are this kind of person. Again, simply having the effort completed is probably the goal if you simply want to have something completed that was not completed previously, but if you are someone that derives satisfaction or dopamine from doing the work yourself, then it is very clear that AI completely short-circuits this reward path for that person. Those are the people who don't like AI, and they have a very solid footing with that argument, I think.
jgerrish 3mo ago
> I honestly don’t understand AI naysayers. I use Claude every day both professionally as a Solution Architect and personally in a variety of projects I simply could not have ever approached alone. My brother works in wildlife trapping and management. I've been brainstorming and prototyping ESP32 sensors and mechanics for traps and educational devices with him. I probably won't end up doing the work with him, but I want him to see what's possible with my other brother, a machine learning expert. Nothing has been deployed in the field. Nothing will be until he and my other brother commit and get proper software risk management policies in place. And legal advice and other support work. And honestly, he's been careful and hasn't pushed for deployment. He works with rabies. He works in people's neighborhoods. Maybe yours. Do you want me to finally get a Claude Code account created and go wild building shit, or keep reading up on ISA 62443 and other security frameworks and mapping out the risks? I'm not going to drag LLM generated work into your neighborhood today. Would you honestly want someone else to? And when people realize this is happening now everywhere and the entire AI industry is fucked, including other machine learning fields that get hit by association? Then my other brother the fucking Princeton Machine Learning Super Star can't pay for his fucking kids' schooling because of a million people fucking *not understanding* and intelligence agencies taking advantage of it. He's smeared by the broad anti-AI brush. Then my brother may have to depend on more assistance from law enforcement, legal resources and conservation agencies. Because I didn't have the power to stop the LLM hype machine earlier. It always would have made sense to have them work with state and federal Wildlife Conservation officers and agencies. Now it feels a little less like watching my brothers build those relationships out of mutual respect for other professionals and more out of need. It feels unequal. So, I have to put in work today assuring my brothers' clients of tomorrow, who care about their family and kids, that no, their machine learning algorithms won't take their elderly parents medicine and push them down the stairs. It will, with careful review from lawyers and experts, help their kids identify nature in their backyard on their Smart TV. If they want, it will identify the difference between gopher tortoise holes and mole holes, and maybe if they opt-in to a Community of Saving feature, it will let Fish and Wildlife Conservation know there are habitats nearby so we can see how healthy our ecosystem is as a community together, or call their preferred pest eliminator. That sounds like PR. Because I have to do that extra work today. Because otherwise we aren't just protected by our fellow professionals who care about theie work out there in the field, instead we always need some bigger institution protecting and controlling us. My brothers are delaying committing resources to projects. That's fine, they have other important priorities, but I keep warning them. And there probably will be an equivalent of the "Video Game Crash of 1983" in 2028 or whatever. And I think if I had had more personal power and been believed I could have done something about that before we had to be protected.

rvnx 4mo ago

[flagged]

jazzyjackson 4mo ago
I’ll explain it: these tools are non-deterministic and people have different experiences with them. For a few people every interaction is totally fumbled and they think the cheerleaders of gen AI must be lying, for others the chatbot hits one home run after another and lets them add microcontrollers to their CAN bus. When these people’s good luck runs out and they start getting mixed results like the average user, they assert the service must have been down graded
- dyauspitr 4mo ago
  I still don’t get it I can dictate a prompt and sometimes I do it so quickly the text looks like a drunken parrot dictated it and it still always gets exactly what I’m asking for. I’m just going to attribute malice to the naysayers.
  - bonoboTP 4mo ago
    Some people are really bad at specifying what they want to ask for. Or they already start prompting with the attitude that it can't possibly work so they don't even really try, or stop at the first failure to point and say how bad it is.
    - thewebguyd 4mo ago
      People are really, really bad at specifying what they actually want. I've worked in IT for my whole career, starting in help desk (now an IT manager). My days in the service desk was enough proof that people have no idea what they actually want, or at least, they really struggle to articulate it into words. It's the famous "email broken, fix pls" but in the form of an LLM prompt.
      - rvnx 4mo ago
        Similarly, doing service desk, the thing that makes me flip the table is how people start by explaining what does not work, instead of explaining what they are trying to do.
        bonoboTP 4mo ago
        It's hard even at the highest levels, such as in writing scientific papers or doing scientific conference talks. People just generally have a hard time to step outside of their context and think with the head of someone who has a different set of facts and assumptions in their context. It's hard to know how much context you both share, and how to tailor the explanation so you also don't start from Adam and Eve but you explain just enough context and strip irrelevant tangents. I don't think this is just about intention and willingness, it's just simply hard.
      - bonoboTP 4mo ago
        Well, today's multimodal llm agents with tools would at least have a good chance to do something with even such an underspecified query. Because fixing things is simpler to specify, the agent could look at config, network settings, send a test email, take a screenshot etc and get a good idea of what's broken. But when you want some new feature or new app, you can't do without actually asking for specifics, or at least you shouldn't complain if it didn't read your mind correctly. Or at least accept that you have to iterate. I think many average people can get this if they are motivated, and they can incrementally say what they don't like even in vague terms and it can get better. But some just stop without trying to ask for changes. It can be frustrating to observe people interacting with these things. But it was just as frustrating 20 years ago, so maybe it's just a constant.
- triMichael 4mo ago
  I'll add to that: you are more likely to have a good experience if it has a lot of relevant data that it was trained on. You are also more likely to have a good experience if errors don't cause major issues. So one-shotting a game of Snake should be great (tons of training data, errors are easily caught because it's a small program). Similar with building a lot of web UI front end, or one-shotting a personal project. On the other hand, I haven't been convinced that it's good enough to maintain large codebases or assist with niche topics that are not very well documented.
  - lowbloodsugar 4mo ago
    > On the other hand, I haven't been convinced that it's good enough to maintain large codebases or assist with niche topics that are not very well documented. Same is true of humans. So far my experience is that addressing the issue with the help of AI is faster than not (ie comprehending the system and creating the documentation).
    - cauch 4mo ago
      I don't understand the comments of the kind of "same is true with human". This feels a bit like whataboutism. It also feels like people don't listen to each others. For example, reading the previous comment, it feels like the thing that reduce the enthusiasm was that at first GenAI looks like it was "reading, understanding and using its own knowledge to answer the problem", but as soon as it is a ore niche or a more complex situation, GenAI looks like it "does not understand the code, just does the equivalent of a StackOverflow search and try to apply the solutions that it found there, and this is why it felt like it understood the code before". It does not at all means that GenAI is not terribly useful. And even better than humans in some situations. But it feels that answering "same with humans" is missing this point: that's the opposite, humans usually try to understand the code and are bad at covering a very large range of very well documented subjects. That's the "uncanny valley" they talk about: they assumed GenAI performance on a subject X is due to a "human-like" approach, and it feels very strange when this impression falls apart.
      - 4mo ago
camel_gopher 4mo ago
It’s a probabilistic parrot
- foobarbecue 4mo ago
  What's the difference (stochastic vs probabilistic)? Or... were you illustrating?
amelius 4mo ago
I still would like to hear a public apology from the stochastic parrot crowd for their deceptive framing. Or maybe it was just incompetence.
- trumpdong 4mo ago
  "everyone who doesn't share my opinion is deceptive or maybe incompetent"

archagon 4mo ago

[flagged]

donkey_brains 4mo ago
Just as bad as the technical debt is the cognitive debt in your codebase. When something breaks, your only recourse is to ask the AI how to fix it, since it wrote it and you did not have time to review all of its code. Except now the code base is so large it won’t fit into the context window, and the AI can’t help you, and…you’re screwed.
- shmoogy 4mo ago
  If you're vibing such complex things you should probably be in the habit of also generating detailed documentation and commits so the ai can follow breadcrumbs, add some playbooks for how to debug and it's actually pretty good. Too complex for local models context though - so you're probably still correct albeit there are ways to mitigate or delay this.
  - jplusequalt 4mo ago
    >there are ways to mitigate or delay this. Yeah, like writing the code yourself!

williamdclt 4mo ago

> projects I simply could not have ever approached alone. I think that's part of the divide between enthusiasts and naysayers. If you use GenAI on things that you couldn't approach alone, it's an incredible tool. If you use it on stuff that you're pretty good at, it's not a gamechanger (and if you're an expert, it's a minor boost at best). Many people's job are about doing what they're an expert at.

dawnerd 4mo ago
And in a team setting it can really accelerate tech debt especially if used by people that know just enough to be dangerous.
LouisSayers 4mo ago
I find it's a huge boost for my day-to-day work. If you work on architecture and Claude docs, then you can essentially just have it fill in the gaps. Work then mostly becomes a matter of defining what the next piece of functionality is (which you can also use Claude to help with). The stuff that used to take days now takes hours. It's not perfect, but if you get your codebase into a good shape then the payoff is huge.
- mattmanser 4mo ago
  I re-read something I did 6 months ago doing this. It's so obviously AI and had much less value than I thought now I look at it with fresh eyes. Worse it doesn't read like I wrote it, I don't recognize myself in the doc.
bawolff 4mo ago
I think part of it is we often notice bad AI usage. The llm generated "art" by someone with bad taste, or the patches to open source projects by people who cant program at all and are teerrible. If the use is half decent people just dont notice it.
- tstrimple 4mo ago
  Anti-AI zealots (from a practical usability position. Not necessarily the moral ones) are like the people who looked at The Daily WTF and decided no humans are capable of programming. They had plenty of examples to point at, but refuse to look at decent to great programmers. The stories of "The AI deleted my database!" are prevalent and boosted by these folks because it confirms their biases. It literally doesn't matter if the LLM wrote strong warnings about the action about to be taken. They don't see that aspect of it. Just the fact that someone claims "The AI deleted my database!" is enough for them. Despite all the liars telling me gaming is easier on Linux than Windows, most new games have some sort of issues launching with default settings. CC is able to dive into both the exact error logs and the recent community feedback on what tweaks / configurations are needed to make it work. I rarely have to go beyond two prompts before a game is playable. CC and Proton are enabling the Linux gaming experience far more than Linus ever has or ever was interested in.

jesse_dot_id 4mo ago

Same. I'm a DevOps engineer, so a jack of all trades master of none type of guy, and Claude Code backfills my knowledge gaps and turns me into kind of a superhero. I think it's key to already have a pretty good idea of what you're looking at, though.

doctorwho42 4mo ago

Maybe because the scale of investment out strips the value? What trillion dollar problem is AI solving?

fragmede 4mo ago
If you're going to put it that way, companies, globally, spend something on the order of $20 trillion on office workers. If corporations didn't have to spend that money on them, and everything else in order to support them, they wouldn't.
- luckystarr 4mo ago
  Then the workers wouldn't spend 20 trillion and the economy as a whole would tank.

jplusequalt 4mo ago

>projects I simply could not have ever approached alone. Learned helplessness.

dang 3mo ago
That's not fair. It often has to do with limits of time and energy. There are countless things one would do if it took a few hours, but which one doesn't have a few days to spend on.

zahlman 4mo ago

A lot of the time people relate an anecdote about how Claude helped do some cool thing, my reaction is that it's not a thing I would have thought about doing in the first place, and that I still can't really imagine wanting to do myself, even though it indeed sounds cool. This is no exception.

sntran 3mo ago
You will be surprised that there are lots of things you want to do yourself but haven't been able to (not just ability, but time and effort).

thih9 3mo ago

> I honestly don’t understand AI naysayers. As an AI naysayer, I see and appreciate the productivity gains, I don’t like the associated cost, mostly the spike in workflow centralization and opaqueness.

regisb 3mo ago
Yes and I'd like to talk about the environmental impact as well please.
- Schiendelman 3mo ago
  I can do things at least 10 times as fast as coding myself now. I'm pretty sure the environmental impact is, frankly, a reduction. My home computer (and feeding myself) for 10 times the time is more than I'm burning in a data center using an LLM.
  - hexasquid 3mo ago
    Indeed. I often see comments on the ethics and water/energy consumption of AI, but very few for non-vegan* developers boiling water for their coffees in air conditioned offices that require a commute, which I assume is a common default. *blue-water usage of a burger patty is worth looking up, I was astonished
    - regisb 3mo ago
      I assume you mean car commute, right? I don't know about the US but in France (or Europe) the environmental impact of air conditioning, car driving and meat consumption is well understood by most educated people.
  - regisb 3mo ago
    I'm not sure I understand. You realise that our token consumption in coming on top of our other energy/water consumption right? Also, the environmental impact might be small if we run a small number of inference queries every day, but that impact will grow linearly with the number of queries and agents we run.

erikerikson 3mo ago

I am more of a "huh, interesting demo, I'm gonna check in on it later" sayer than a naysayer. My biggest reason, with coding, is that I already, before AI, struggled to deal with too many distractions from my coding and too many piles of low quality output. I should probably check in since it's been a bit but every time I've tried to generate some simple project, I look through it and think what terrible garbage with so many errors. After two decades of developing my craft, I struggled with most of my fellow human programmers too. The business loves delivery it now even if then someone is revisiting it hundreds of times more to fix it in little bits for a total effort cost of 10-100 (or higher) times more.

yuppiepuppie 3mo ago

Any docs/suggestions on how to do this? Would love to do it with my campervan as well :)

Frost1x 3mo ago

My opinion is that it’s a defensive mechanism. I’ve seen it across experts in knowledge domains and my own. When you hear experts disagree it’s fine because it’s another human, when the LLM disagrees and provides an objective backing that’s often solid, people jump to defense and look for very subtle nuances they wouldn’t bring up with peers and those subtleties are often highly subjective and arguably often incorrect. That’s been my observation. I for one welcome our new LLM overlords so long as some provide be solid living standards. Mistakes do happen and they aren’t perfect so experts often do have arguments but they do come stupidly close to approximation of expertise.

bah9 3mo ago

Because work just became unfun. You are context provider to LLM. What is exactly your work? Give context to llm, review, update context. Navigating some sort of super intelligence thru your company's harness is not the same as writing code and creating ideas from scratch. And I don't understand what's fun in that Yes, you can ship software faster, make corporation even more money. Why is this even important for regular worker? I liked the craft itself

IAmGraydon 3mo ago

>I could go on and on, but Claude recently decompiled the firmware of my camper van, documented all the CAN interfaces, then programmed an ESP32 module to talk to the van’s integrated systems (power, HVAC, lighting, tanks). That sort of embedded systems integration is completely out of my wheelhouse. Can you tell me a bit more about the firmware/camper van? Has this firmware been decompiled by anyone else?

boppo1 3mo ago

I know Anthropic has blocks on using Claude for security reasearch; Are they not blocking Reverse engineering or RE tools?

Bawoosette 3mo ago
From my experience, the safeguards only come up during exploit development. You are free to do reverse engineering and even the first half of vulnerability research (i.e. vulnerability discovery) and it only stops once you want it to actually write the exploit.

1ste 3mo ago

I'm interested to hear how you use it as a SA

naikrovek 3mo ago

> I honestly don’t understand AI naysayers. If you are describing someone that wants things to be done, then I agree with you. If you are describing someone that wants to learn things and do the fixing themselves, then I don't understand how you could say that. For a lot of us, the learning and the mistakes and the eventual fixing of a thing or completion of a project is the goal. Us doing the work is the reward function. AI strips that off and simply finishes the project, removing any and all incentive for the person involved, if they are this kind of person. Again, simply having the effort completed is probably the goal if you simply want to have something completed that was not completed previously, but if you are someone that derives satisfaction or dopamine from doing the work yourself, then it is very clear that AI completely short-circuits this reward path for that person. Those are the people who don't like AI, and they have a very solid footing with that argument, I think.

jgerrish 3mo ago

> I honestly don’t understand AI naysayers. I use Claude every day both professionally as a Solution Architect and personally in a variety of projects I simply could not have ever approached alone. My brother works in wildlife trapping and management. I've been brainstorming and prototyping ESP32 sensors and mechanics for traps and educational devices with him. I probably won't end up doing the work with him, but I want him to see what's possible with my other brother, a machine learning expert. Nothing has been deployed in the field. Nothing will be until he and my other brother commit and get proper software risk management policies in place. And legal advice and other support work. And honestly, he's been careful and hasn't pushed for deployment. He works with rabies. He works in people's neighborhoods. Maybe yours. Do you want me to finally get a Claude Code account created and go wild building shit, or keep reading up on ISA 62443 and other security frameworks and mapping out the risks? I'm not going to drag LLM generated work into your neighborhood today. Would you honestly want someone else to? And when people realize this is happening now everywhere and the entire AI industry is fucked, including other machine learning fields that get hit by association? Then my other brother the fucking Princeton Machine Learning Super Star can't pay for his fucking kids' schooling because of a million people fucking *not understanding* and intelligence agencies taking advantage of it. He's smeared by the broad anti-AI brush. Then my brother may have to depend on more assistance from law enforcement, legal resources and conservation agencies. Because I didn't have the power to stop the LLM hype machine earlier. It always would have made sense to have them work with state and federal Wildlife Conservation officers and agencies. Now it feels a little less like watching my brothers build those relationships out of mutual respect for other professionals and more out of need. It feels unequal. So, I have to put in work today assuring my brothers' clients of tomorrow, who care about their family and kids, that no, their machine learning algorithms won't take their elderly parents medicine and push them down the stairs. It will, with careful review from lawyers and experts, help their kids identify nature in their backyard on their Smart TV. If they want, it will identify the difference between gopher tortoise holes and mole holes, and maybe if they opt-in to a Community of Saving feature, it will let Fish and Wildlife Conservation know there are habitats nearby so we can see how healthy our ecosystem is as a community together, or call their preferred pest eliminator. That sounds like PR. Because I have to do that extra work today. Because otherwise we aren't just protected by our fellow professionals who care about theie work out there in the field, instead we always need some bigger institution protecting and controlling us. My brothers are delaying committing resources to projects. That's fine, they have other important priorities, but I keep warning them. And there probably will be an equivalent of the "Video Game Crash of 1983" in 2028 or whatever. And I think if I had had more personal power and been believed I could have done something about that before we had to be protected.