dontlikeyoueith

7 ms·

1.
by dontlikeyoueith 3mo ago
It's an optimal first order approximation. Anything anyone with a capital-C in their job title says in public should be assumed to be marketing material.
2.
by dontlikeyoueith 3mo ago
Snake oil scam. They simply don't do what the label on the box says they do.
3.
by dontlikeyoueith 3mo ago
The sooner the better.
4.
by dontlikeyoueith 3mo ago
The models are still useful bumbling fools. We're in the flat part of the curve because we've exhausted existing data sources.
5.
by dontlikeyoueith 3mo ago
I disagree with your assessment pretty strongly -- the models themselves hit a wall over a year ago once companies exhausted all existing training data. LLMs don't induce world models, and they aren't capable of real search an pl
6.
by dontlikeyoueith 3mo ago
> OpenAI and Anthropic are heavily subsidizing their inference -- no wait, they are charging the most they can get away with before going public. Where is the truth? Both. They are charging the most they can get away with and that amoun
7.
by dontlikeyoueith 4mo ago
> As an employer, I want AI to be fully allowed for assignments, and the assignments to be made trickier to compensate. This is like saying first graders should learn to use calculators, not how to do arithmetic. Some skills are foundati
8.
by dontlikeyoueith 4mo ago
> The NLA would be forced to use human readable representations to get a successful round trip. That still doesn't guarantee any semantic correspondence between the human readable representation and the model's "thinking&q
9.
by dontlikeyoueith 5mo ago
> LLMs are based on neural networks, so one could create an interface where activating certain neurons triggers tool calls, with other neurons encoding the inputs; another set of neurons could be triggered by the tokenized result from th
10.
by dontlikeyoueith 5mo ago
> I think the point the GP was trying to make is that the GitHub UI ought to be able to allow you to submit a branch with multiple well-organized commits and review each commit separately with its own PR So the point he's trying to
11.
by dontlikeyoueith 5mo ago
Why do you insist on a different but functionally equivalent solution to the problem? It's weird. > Why do we tolerate the fact that GitHub doesn't let you say "approved for changes in `frontend/*` That's literal
12.
by dontlikeyoueith 5mo ago
Depends on what you consider long-lived. I typically generate stacks of 3-5 PRs in 1-2 days now (in a gen-AI world).
13.
by dontlikeyoueith 5mo ago
Because sometimes there are changes that need to land as all or nothing.
14.
by dontlikeyoueith 5mo ago
> When competing for resources, killing your neighbour frees up resources, which you can take. Most species of animal and even plants do this to some extent. If anything, I'd say plants do it more. Everything in the garden is tryin
15.
by dontlikeyoueith 5mo ago
There's been a massive step change in their capability per unit cost. What used to cost millions per unit now costs tens of thousands. That's significant. It's like saying artillery isn't that big a deal in 1914. After
16.
by dontlikeyoueith 6mo ago
> Catering to their loudest supporters Name one instance of this actually happening. I'll wait.
17.
by dontlikeyoueith 6mo ago
Calling "reasoning tokens" "thinking" is a complete confusion of concepts on your part.
18.
by dontlikeyoueith 6mo ago
Nope. It's only surprising to people who still think they're going to build God out of LLMs.
19.
by dontlikeyoueith 6mo ago
No, it's significantly more complex.
20.
by dontlikeyoueith 6mo ago
They are referring to Hetch Hetchy.
21.
by dontlikeyoueith 8mo ago
How about critiquing the actual recommendation instead of the people?
22.
by dontlikeyoueith 9mo ago
Too bad they voted to eliminate accountability for businesses that poison people. Now they get to find out.
23.
by dontlikeyoueith 9mo ago
I have a Miele canister vacuum. I love it. My wife bought the Dyson garbage anyway because she can't ignore her instagram feed.
24.
by dontlikeyoueith 9mo ago
> Refuse to express uncertainty or nuance (i asked ChatGPT to give me certainty %s which it did for a while but then just forgot...?) They're literally incapable of this. Any number they give you is bullshit.
25.
by dontlikeyoueith 9mo ago
You're hallucinating things I did not say.
26.
by dontlikeyoueith 9mo ago
You're entitled to be wrong.
27.
by dontlikeyoueith 9mo ago
Cute straw man. You must be a CEO. I'm not arguing anything. I'm observing reality. You're the one who is desperate to rationalize it.
28.
by dontlikeyoueith 9mo ago
Yes, that is in fact their revealed preference. Did you have a point?
29.
by dontlikeyoueith 9mo ago
And there's the same empty headed certainty, extrapolating a sigmoid into an exponential.
30.
by dontlikeyoueith 9mo ago
In practice, yes, though they wouldn't think of it that way because that's the kind of people they surround themselves with, so it's what they think human interaction is actually like.

More ›