5 ms·

>botlickers > Linus and Greg K-H suddenly deciding they like it is not evidence. You don't seem particularly interested in changing your mind

lproven 1mo ago
I worked out where I stand and why I stand there. I have reasons. I want evidence to consider changing. Why should I? Because someone somewhere found a tool useful? Because they are big names? That's argument from authority. I don't buy it. I need compelling reasons. I have yet to see any. All I see is a lot of people jumping on bandwagons.
- E-Reverance 1mo ago
  I'm confused, other people finding it useful is evidence of it being useful for them. How is that merely jumping on a bandwagon? As someone who doesn't like coding, all the one off scripts and ideations its permitted are awesome. Recently I got it to help me explore and compare curve smoothing algorithms and it helped me to test my own formulations that I hadn't seen elsewhere, and converged on computing segments of: ||T(s)-T(t)||^2. / |s-t|^3, where s and t are arc length indices, and we sum over multiple scales of offsets and where T is the (unit) tangent of the curve. Just because that doesn't involve you means its not useful? Its ability to give highly bespoke scripts makes it far more useful to me than hiring an opinionated software developer!!!!!
  - lproven 1mo ago
    It is all about externalities. Same as fossil fuels, same as slavery. This kind of systems thinking seems to blow the minds of a lot of heads-down software folks. You have to think about the big picture. Otherwise, the picture goes out. 1. LLMs are profoundly, inexcusably unethical. 2. The kind of software and tools one can build with LLMs might be better off not built at all. These sorts of thoughts seem to blow people's minds. Well, tough. Get used to having a bigger mind.

5 ms·

>botlickers > Linus and Greg K-H suddenly deciding they like it is not evidence. You don't seem particularly interested in changing your mind

by E-Reverance 1mo ago

lproven 1mo ago
I worked out where I stand and why I stand there. I have reasons. I want evidence to consider changing. Why should I? Because someone somewhere found a tool useful? Because they are big names? That's argument from authority. I don't buy it. I need compelling reasons. I have yet to see any. All I see is a lot of people jumping on bandwagons.
- E-Reverance 1mo ago
  I'm confused, other people finding it useful is evidence of it being useful for them. How is that merely jumping on a bandwagon? As someone who doesn't like coding, all the one off scripts and ideations its permitted are awesome. Recently I got it to help me explore and compare curve smoothing algorithms and it helped me to test my own formulations that I hadn't seen elsewhere, and converged on computing segments of: ||T(s)-T(t)||^2. / |s-t|^3, where s and t are arc length indices, and we sum over multiple scales of offsets and where T is the (unit) tangent of the curve. Just because that doesn't involve you means its not useful? Its ability to give highly bespoke scripts makes it far more useful to me than hiring an opinionated software developer!!!!!
  - lproven 1mo ago
    It is all about externalities. Same as fossil fuels, same as slavery. This kind of systems thinking seems to blow the minds of a lot of heads-down software folks. You have to think about the big picture. Otherwise, the picture goes out. 1. LLMs are profoundly, inexcusably unethical. 2. The kind of software and tools one can build with LLMs might be better off not built at all. These sorts of thoughts seem to blow people's minds. Well, tough. Get used to having a bigger mind.