fooker

5 ms·

1.
A call for a pause – Vivek Srikumar(svivek.com)
6 points by fooker 22h ago|3 comments
2.
by fooker 3d ago
> fails to procure sufficient evidence or instruction on how exactly training the to-be software engineer in the age of AI should be. Of course there's no instruction on how to succeed in a rapidly changing new field. Do you think
3.
by fooker 3d ago
> what good software looks like I think this will change quite a bit too. Code being readable is one of our core tenets. Functions fitting within, approximately, a screen of code used to be ideal. Modern AI as already past solving that p
4.
by fooker 3d ago
No, software engineering is fundamentally changed because of AI. No amount of digging our heads in the sand is going to undo that. For example, the traditional best practice cycle of "small incremental change, code review, test, commit
5.
by fooker 4d ago
This is like saying there's nothing to learn about programming, you're just telling a computer what to do. :) It's partly true, but where this logic gets stuck is software engineering, for both the cases. Just telling the AI
6.
by fooker 5d ago
Interesting analogy
7.
by fooker 5d ago
If only the tsar knew ...
8.
by fooker 5d ago
Maybe mathematicians should be aligned better, rather than AI? The current measure of a successful mathematician is the problems they have solved or worked on. At some point in history, the measure of a successful scholar was how well one c
9.
by fooker 7d ago
Other mathematicians for the last ten years : Open math problems being non renewably mined by Terrence Tao. Jokes aside, this seems like a pretty weird take. What's stopping mathematicians to make this renewable? Why not spend some tim
10.
by fooker 8d ago
I meant that it's very common when it comes to high profile discoveries and inventions. If you have made one, and there was never any dishonest competition, you have indeed been very lucky. I haven't, but the history of science is
11.
by fooker 8d ago
CS PhD, used to be a professor, have worked at several industry research labs since. > this practice is quite bad mannered, unusual, and heavily frowned upon, Yes, it is. Maybe you missed my point? The fact that is "quite bad manner
12.
by fooker 8d ago
I think you're making the opposite conclusion than what I intended? Being scooped is a big deal for the one getting scooped. It has never been a big deal for the one doing the scooping. History is full of math and science results being
13.
by fooker 8d ago
Yes, this is how science and engineering has worked for millennia. For example there are no engineering implications of this solution yet. For the next several decades, we'll have engineers (presumably with AI) optimize things like roc
14.
by fooker 8d ago
Research projects don't start in a vacuum. It never happens that you wake up one morning and start working on a new problem that came to you in a dream (*unless you are Ramanujan). This is business as usual for academia, it's amus
15.
by fooker 8d ago
It works in niche fields where everyone knows each other and every discussion involves who did what portion of the work for a result.
16.
by fooker 8d ago
So... what do you feel about eliminating (humans with) cancer?
17.
by fooker 8d ago
> I think that literally any academic mathematician could have explained to them, had they asked, why it is considered extraordinarily rude to react to rumors of research progress by desperately rushing to get there first. Pretty much a
18.
by fooker 9d ago
I got one and it is a neat fun device. And it's pretty hackable, with an open firmware, bunch of community involvement in developing third party alternatives for the default software. I have even vibecoded random software to run on it.
19.
by fooker 10d ago
Start a cult with init=/bin/????? in your bootloader ;)
20.
by fooker 10d ago
Security and performance are often have different, contradictory needs. The meltdown+spectre saga showed this for speculative execution. This is no different.
21.
by fooker 10d ago
A process is monotheistic because everyone is created by PID 1.
22.
by fooker 10d ago
If it's truly asynchronous, I don't see the issue with IO being decoupled from process lifetime. If you wanted to stop the IO at process death, the mechanism needed for this would introduce an overhead that would likely slow thing
23.
by fooker 10d ago
> worked on it for months, and have a 50+ page Google doc of notes. That sounds more like a part time job than a game. I'm curious if you play it for the mental challenge? I feel challenged enough at $dayjob that all I want from gam
24.
by fooker 10d ago
Because it wouldn't involve handling live animals, could be significantly more automated, would not need as much real estate, would eliminate wastage of the parts we don't really consume, could be done at larger scales in a more c
25.
by fooker 11d ago
Everything in history that was mass produced was priced more than an order of magnitude lower than the 'original'. I don't see artificial meat being the first exception to this. I'd see 'same price as meat' bei
26.
by fooker 11d ago
Not an expert on this. Passing on what I have heard from robotics researchers at lunch conversations. My impression is that any moving part that is not an electric motor or an hinge breaks.
27.
by fooker 11d ago
Yes we can do this, and if you look for it you'll find plenty of videos of this happening. But you can't buy it because it'll break in about seven days.
28.
by fooker 11d ago
The bottleneck is not really the intelligence here. We can build robots that do the things you want. Arrange a visit to Amazon's robot warehouse tour. We can't ship them because they break all the time with current technology. It
29.
by fooker 11d ago
You're off by ~40%. Their combined market cap seems to be around 600M.
30.
by fooker 11d ago
Right, anthropomorphizing AI is a 'human experience' too. Most people just feel better treating AI as a conscious thing that 'thinks'. As a coworker or whatever. Plenty of people seem to be using AI as some sort of thera

More ›