thunky

6 ms·

1.
by thunky 3d ago
I agree. But that still doesn't make it a lie or illegal.
2.
by thunky 3d ago
> We need new words! The words we have are fine. We just need to assign liability by ownership/initiation: if your "agent" destroys something, even though you didn't tell it to (because it had "agency"), you
3.
by thunky 3d ago
Because a PE is a fact not an interpretation.
4.
by thunky 5d ago
As i write this, an article about Claude is 6th from the top on the linked site.
5.
by thunky 7d ago
> you aren't countering my core point that golf courses is the possibly the worst use of space and basically anything else would serve the same or better utility for way more people My counter point was that everything we do doesn&#
6.
by thunky 8d ago
A curved wall?
7.
by thunky 8d ago
Yes. And right after we kill golf lets pave over Central Park. And we can tear down sports arenas and concert venues after that. It's a huge waste when you think about how few people actually go there and what benefit they actually hav
8.
by thunky 11d ago
> LLMs generate compartmentalized modules which exponentially explodes the number of failure modes It sounds like you're arguing against modularizing which is an unusual stance. Especially for a million line codebase.
9.
by thunky 11d ago
> Guess we’ll need even more human software engineers to fix it. This is what we've been doing for years before LLMs. Hiring a ton of devs to spit out code, which became another's burden. It just took longer and cost more.
10.
by thunky 12d ago
That's two purposes. I think the first one is the whole story anyway.
11.
by thunky 15d ago
When he's gone we can just undo it as easily as he did it. And tear down all of his other tributes to himself. If we don't want idiots to do idiotic things we probably shouldn't make it possible/legal in the first place.
12.
by thunky 24d ago
> some users said they care about But how could they possibly know what they should care about if they don't understand the code? > how do you find out that was really the feature that should have been built next? Phew right they
13.
by thunky 1mo ago
> Besides, in this area, clients getting one whiff of AI code would be an immediate deal-killer If you implement AI code review suggestions then you're using AI code, just the hard way. Also I don't see why your clients would b
14.
by thunky 1mo ago
> Turns out the gains were eroded by having to check the work and turn verbose prose into an actual note. LLMs are great at this. I'd be very surprised if it wasn't possible to improve the actionable notes. Most human-made doc
15.
by thunky 1mo ago
Same thing you would do for a human decision: You don't blindly follow it, and you also don't order a DNA test of the person that made it. You look at the output to include supporting evidence. And you have a process for appeals.
16.
by thunky 1mo ago
You're accusing GP of saying something they didn't say and simultaneously telling them they don't "get it". That's distasteful.
17.
by thunky 1mo ago
Great. Just don't get upset when a politician you don't like wipes his butt with the consititution.
18.
by thunky 1mo ago
The article is fine. LLMs are just turning everyone into divas.
19.
by thunky 1mo ago
Did you read TFA? Because all of your questions are answered clearly there.
20.
by thunky 1mo ago
The good news: Your worst complaint has nothing to do with the overall content or accuracy of the post. Just style bashing.
21.
by thunky 1mo ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki
22.
by thunky 1mo ago
A Million Little Pieces was a popular book about addiction that inspired a lot of people. Turned out the story wasn't true, and so a lot of inspiration turned into anger. Always thought that was interesting, because if the lies weren&#
23.
by thunky 1mo ago
All of the gripes OP has with Django are arguably worse in Rails.
24.
by thunky 1mo ago
This implies that "create" is the hard part that we should not offload to machines. But IME all of the other things are the hard part. So basically it's fine to get the LLM to think for you and give you the answers as long as
25.
by thunky 2mo ago
With respect, you're likely being taken advantage of. Your advisor doesn't have any fancy computer with more info than you have. You're paying for an illusion and it's not cheap: A 1% annual fee reduces your wealth by 20
26.
by thunky 2mo ago
> This is the misunderstanding. Golfnow is for advertising. Yes that is the misunderstanding. Lets agree to disagree.
27.
by thunky 2mo ago
> With respect, I don’t think you understand what you’re talking about. Probably not. I'm just telling you my observation. And you're pointing out a problem without offering a solution. Your advice to OP is "don't lin
28.
by thunky 2mo ago
Obviously it is, because Golfnow is certainly not a monopoly. There are small golf courses near me that don't use them and that's fine. Please don't shame the ones that do.
29.
by thunky 2mo ago
> Because it's convenient to have all buyers operating through a single network I just don't see Golfnow as a "single network". I golf with a lot of people that have never heard of them. If a course isn't on Gol
30.
by thunky 2mo ago
> Golf Now can be incredibly bad for those courses Golfnow offers a service that courses must value, otherwise why would they list with them? And golfers get good deals. It's not clear to me what's so bad about this.

More ›