virgilp

4 ms·

1.
by virgilp 13d ago
What do you mean? Virtually all humans have access to the internet. That's literally "a significant cross section of human knowledge available in real-time". Oh, the median human can't process that in realtime, you say?
2.
by virgilp 1mo ago
> We can easily train a LLM to pass the Turing test if we wanted to, but then it would just sound dumb or biased. Interesting idea. "This is not dumb and biased enough, probably not a human".
3.
by virgilp 2mo ago
The honest title is "what Claude learned from reimplementing 40 Multi-Agent LLM Papers"
4.
by virgilp 2mo ago
Well before I knew he was a nutter, it strikes be that the graph starts in 1991. Feels like we should should have more data than that, and that the same graph would be more powerful if it started in 1800 and showed the same thing (or at lea
5.
by virgilp 2mo ago
It seems that pass rate decreases with effort increase, on GPT5.5? This is highly counter-intuitive and I don't see any explanation, any idea why they'd get this result?
6.
by virgilp 3mo ago
Perhaps you're a better-than-average driver? I unfortunately am not, and have had the opposite experience (people flashing me because I forgot to turn off the high beams, or couldn't do it fast enough due to e.g. a corner, or drin
7.
by virgilp 3mo ago
Admittedly mine is somewhat high end, and I have seen broken implementations (which is what I think you describe; e.g. for auto high beam assist mine will redirect the beams around isolated cars, won't completely switch to low beams ex
8.
by virgilp 3mo ago
> If you don't call an exterminator with the proper poison almost any effort you make will be moot. Nah, not true. I lived in a student housing that was positively _infested_ with cockroaches (and had stuff like wood paneling on th
9.
by virgilp 3mo ago
So do other drivers that fail to switch to low beams - even my old car was better than me in switching to low beams.
10.
by virgilp 3mo ago
How are all these "broken and dangerous"? In my car (Volvo) they work rather well. Perhaps sign detection sometimes misses signs, but so do I so I can't fault it. The others though, I rank them all somewhere between "gen
11.
by virgilp 3mo ago
He talks about 15% _per month_
12.
by virgilp 3mo ago
You can still believe that the scientific method works; and might leads you to 2 conclusions: (a) "I can prove earth is not flat" (using this methodology) (b) I cannot prove there is no God, though I may believe the prevalence of
13.
by virgilp 3mo ago
To be fair, their control variables treat the first objection (wealth), not the second (brand preference; and yeah there's some correlation but one doesn't imply the other)
14.
by virgilp 3mo ago
That's the 4th option
15.
by virgilp 3mo ago
That's for the good studies. Let's not pretend that all published studies are honest. Unfortunately it is quite reasonable to be skeptical about extraordinary claims such as this one.
16.
by virgilp 4mo ago
If we ignore cost (which is kinda hard to ignore), I feel Codex kinda' does it for me. Sure it's not really an editor but I find I don't need that _that much_ and it's easy to launch an external editor (they actually hav
17.
by virgilp 4mo ago
I wonder how knowledgeable in compilation was the engineer that attempted this. I'm pretty confident that I could produce a decent C compiler in a few weeks (or less), if given Opus 4.7 + unlimited tokens + a good test suite. (and this
18.
by virgilp 4mo ago
you can absolutely know. they do suspiciously well. you just give harder problems until they can't solve it. how they react/approach a problem that they can't immediately solve _is_ the interview - not the "how many thin
19.
by virgilp 4mo ago
To be fair it doesn't say "you can't score a goal" or "you can't kick the ball", it says you can only decide to _try_ to do that. But agree it's not that deep as they seem to think, you can take this
20.
by virgilp 4mo ago
One thing that is worth pondering is what parts of the "old wisdom" (if any) are no longer true. Because the set of "common sense knowledge" has a tendency to mutate in time. Take the first statement: > Impactful soft
21.
by virgilp 5mo ago
In Romania I think they just gave back the money (or maybe it was on a voucher with "if you don't use the voucher by date X, we'll refund the money"). which is in stark contrast with how other low-cost airlines like Wiz
22.
by virgilp 5mo ago
I kinda' like Ryanair as lowcost airline? They're fairly efficient (boarding, serving etc), they _actually fly_ the advertised flights (with relatively few exceptions), and the food is reasonably priced. During COVID they would ju
23.
by virgilp 5mo ago
If your feedback loop is hours or days, I don't think it's bad you spend some time thinking ahead of doing. Oh, you missed the unknown unknowns? You'll hit them soon enough anyway, this is not a model that encourages abstrac
24.
by virgilp 5mo ago
Waterfall was bad due to the excessively long feedback loops (months-to-years from "planning" to "customer gets to see it/ we receive feedback on it"). It was NOT bad because it forced people to think before writing
25.
by virgilp 5mo ago
qa has long ago merged with programming in "unified engineering". Also with SRE ("devops") and now the trend is to merge with CSE and product management too ("product mindset", forward-deployed engineers). So y
26.
by virgilp 6mo ago
I honestly don't see how this is related? Nothing says "one shot a full system from a perfect specification", I don't think this was ever a goal (or that it will be practical to do so)
27.
by virgilp 6mo ago
Actually, no. We always needed good checks - that's why you have techniques like automated canary analysis, extensive testing, checking for coverage - these are forms of "executable oracles". If you wanted to be able to do co
28.
by virgilp 6mo ago
Also: if that one particular AI-produced compiler has nothing innovative, that only means that the human "director" behind the AI didn't ask it to produce anything innovative; what it does not mean is that AI can never produc
29.
by virgilp 7mo ago
"Waterfall" got a bad rep because it meant "we stay months in the requirements gathering, then months design phase, then months in development, then months in validation". If you compress "months" to days/
30.
by virgilp 7mo ago
Cool but it is not a framework for working with AI, it is an _opinionated_ framework for building full-stack apps right? As in, I can't use any of it if I'm building, say, a Spark data processing pipeline. Or a ML framework. Or au

More ›