SlinkyOnStairs

5 ms·

1.
by SlinkyOnStairs 3mo ago
> Granted, you can still rush the work, not test properly, neglect good planning and engineering. Which is the core point of my reply and not something to just be casually handwaved, thank you very much.
2.
by SlinkyOnStairs 3mo ago
Minor correction: LinkedIn, not twitter. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/galenh_principal-software-eng... > Because it wasn't about "engineers should write 1M LOC per month of product code" it was &quo
3.
by SlinkyOnStairs 3mo ago
The other comment got the answer already, but yes. It's a cost problem. LLMs are designed this way so they could be trained off unstructured text, which critically can be obtained by just scraping things off the internet. The moment yo
4.
by SlinkyOnStairs 3mo ago
Realistically, we are. This is not some arbitrary design choice, it's the core compromise to make LLMs viable to train at all .
5.
by SlinkyOnStairs 3mo ago
The point there is that it is MUCH easier to get corporate to agree to something when the cost is nebulous and being paid anyway. If you get a senior dev to clean up some tech debt, how much did that cost the company? The dev will have so
6.
by SlinkyOnStairs 3mo ago
"Just have a stochastic machine redo the code with no oversight" This is an utterly terrible idea.
7.
by SlinkyOnStairs 3mo ago
> so there has always been financial incentives to reduce tech debt. Yes. In practice, this does not weigh against organisational resistance. AI really makes it worse by adding an explicit numerical cost to doing anything.
8.
by SlinkyOnStairs 3mo ago
I think you misunderstand why tech debt lingers around. It's not a capacity or capability problem. Organisations just don't want to deal with the accountability involved with "touching cold code". Whether it's a hum
9.
by SlinkyOnStairs 3mo ago
> Haha thought you were referring to the upsell at the start asking to subscribe to the newsletter for $70 / year. People like you would be why I put "(titled)" in the reply. > That's a very bold claim. Really anyo
10.
by SlinkyOnStairs 3mo ago
> Sure, but it remains a big enough problem that human intervention and review is still necessary for any serious work across all use cases and industries. Another important consideration: Hallucinations getting less common/severe b
11.
by SlinkyOnStairs 3mo ago
> He would begin somewhere–statistics on AI demand, say–and then walk the calculations carefully over to the next step–maybe revenue needed for profitability by AI companies–and you could follow the argument. That's exactly what th
12.
by SlinkyOnStairs 3mo ago
> There's no other realistic explanation except that they're making bank. If they were, they'd never shut up about it. Yet they keep quiet about the financials.
13.
by SlinkyOnStairs 3mo ago
> There's plenty of noise about banks holding large amounts of bad private credit debt. This is still only big enough to cause funny banking collapses not actual 2008 scale financial disasters. Banks hold a lot of bad debt, but it&#
14.
by SlinkyOnStairs 3mo ago
> the big providers are charging full freight for inference. Except they're not. Anthropic's claims of temporary profitability line up exactly with when SpaceX is giving them discounted compute, OpenAI's such a shitfest th
15.
by SlinkyOnStairs 3mo ago
Re-read what you wrote yourself. What is being sneered at is these prototypes being put into production. What is being demanded is that additional engineering time to make sure it's actually up to scratch.
16.
by SlinkyOnStairs 3mo ago
> Keep an open mind or you’ll be left behind. An open mind to what? To yolo deployment of dodgy code straight into production? Moving fast and breaking things? > I’ve personally seen this workflow produce real production code, used by
17.
by SlinkyOnStairs 3mo ago
> That first pillar is still there. Maybe the author isn't aware of the impact they have, but I know, with the evidence of reverted PRs, that when I step outside my area of deep knowledge I can no longer call BS on the agents. Our m
18.
by SlinkyOnStairs 3mo ago
More or less correct. It's not that management believes in "9 offshore juniors", it's just that they don't know (nor care to confirm) who's actually working for them at the outsourcing firm. The combined incent
19.
by SlinkyOnStairs 3mo ago
> Telling me that it’s harder to get a professional job that I’m qualified for than it is to walk up to a McDonald’s or whatever and get a job is not shocking. This is so very easily said but how else is this supposed to work, exactly? P
20.
by SlinkyOnStairs 3mo ago
> I wonder what SpaceX's margins are on these contracts. In the Anthropic deal they have to be negative; Anthropic's announced higher margins during the deal.
21.
by SlinkyOnStairs 3mo ago
> Truly a brilliant deal for everyone involved. Same thing they used to say about Lehman.
22.
by SlinkyOnStairs 3mo ago
"This didn't happen, except for that few times where it did happen and massively blew up in the media" That you fail to understand why those students took such great offense to what was said at those speeches doesn't mak
23.
by SlinkyOnStairs 3mo ago
Their job, EXPLICITLY , isn't to maximize returns. People don't buy the S&P 500 because they buy the index because it spreads risk. That they won't get maximum returns is the intended risk tradeoff they want. That people
24.
by SlinkyOnStairs 3mo ago
> There is a more of a generational divide in perception and discussion. I would also say there is a loss of nuance. The youth are facing an enormous employment crisis. Many have found themselves completely unemployable through no fault
25.
by SlinkyOnStairs 3mo ago
The contract has some clauses that lets Google pay less if SpaceX can't deliver the full amount of GPUs. But $12/hr is probably quite accurate. SpaceX' datacenters are horrifyingly expensive, and regular GPUs are being rented
26.
by SlinkyOnStairs 3mo ago
Their exposure is more than just their ownership of SpaceX. If the SpaceX IPO bombs (or even merely underperforms), the expectations for the Anthropic/OpenAI IPOs collapse, and with that, everything else AI. AI companies can't aff
27.
by SlinkyOnStairs 3mo ago
One important note: It's not the admin of the system that's in question here, that is government ran. The company in question only provides cloud services, and has no access to any data. > I just don't understand why the
28.
by SlinkyOnStairs 3mo ago
> Why do you need a specific organization of molecules for a phenomenon similar to consciousness to arise? They would have to be similar because the argument is that they are similar; "AI is like the human brain" only holds tru
29.
by SlinkyOnStairs 3mo ago
> A single biological neuron is closer to 100 or even 1000 weights worth of ANN than to 1 weight worth of ANN. Even those comparisons need to be cautioned. The complexity of biology is enormous, and more importantly yet, it's simply
30.
by SlinkyOnStairs 4mo ago
There's two meanings to "the body is a complex machine" and I think you're missing the forest for the trees here. 1) The abstract "dictionary" version: It'd be technically correct to say that the body is a

More ›