vouwfietsman

6 ms·

1.
by vouwfietsman 5d ago
These are the same thing. Youth has been able to effortlessly do math by using calculators in the past decades, yet we expect and succeed in them learning math. The main thing we need to do is ban llm use somehow for education, as we have w
2.
by vouwfietsman 5d ago
True, I hate windows like most people. I just also hate being unrealistic about it. Good thing about AI is you no longer really have to care about really understanding the OS, unless you are an admin.
3.
by vouwfietsman 5d ago
No I'm arguing that many developments that simplify work while not undermining understanding exist, and we have dealt with them. In the narrow scope of understanding engineering, the fact that AI can also engineer does not prevent us f
4.
by vouwfietsman 5d ago
Indeed it is, so it would be bad to just "resist ai"
5.
by vouwfietsman 5d ago
You are providing nuance to the authors stance, my reaction is to the authors stance. I don't disagree with you but this is no longer about the actual content of the blog post.
6.
by vouwfietsman 5d ago
> but having no ability to work in a world with worsening quality of life If unemployment leads to death, there are many more things wrong than just AI. Why get mad at AI instead of at capitalism. This is nonsensical. > Tobacco/S
7.
by vouwfietsman 6d ago
Depends on what you mean by correct. Do you think the world would be better if those anti-technology people succeeded and the technologies did not come to be? A world without steam engines, cars, computers, printing presses.
8.
by vouwfietsman 6d ago
> For example, for every React app whistled up in five hours, there's a high schooler or college student out there sleepwalking through their foundational courses and being set up to catastrophically fail upon trying to enter the jo
9.
by vouwfietsman 6d ago
No, what he says is not right. Parts of it are, but broadly (as I pointed out) he conflates a lot of things together that have no business being in the same sentence. 1. Reducing/replacing/automating highly complex work is fundame
10.
by vouwfietsman 6d ago
Bad blog. > I do not come to you with clean hands. > I am not here to dictate morality These two things contradict eachother. > My primary focus here will be software development > Environmental Harm > Stanley Tucci These thr
11.
by vouwfietsman 6d ago
As mentioned: gaming, most of enterprise dev, graphics/gpu/cad, desktop, certain classes of embedded. Broadly speaking, outside of hacker/web/creative culture, the default is windows. Regardless of how evil gigantic comp
12.
by vouwfietsman 6d ago
This kind of stuff is why its hard to have good conversations about tooling. Windows is the best place for many kinds of software dev, but perhaps not the kind you are doing.
13.
by vouwfietsman 23d ago
No, you're missing the point. I'm not saying software quality is relative, I'm saying that most current debate on what people think is quality software, is subjective nonsense. I've also never claimed that "you
14.
by vouwfietsman 24d ago
I see what you mean. You could read it as quality in the operational correctness sense, but just as well in the software architectural design sense. My comment indeed applies to only one of those. However, why judge correctness as a "c
15.
by vouwfietsman 25d ago
> I cringe at the quality of what it generates. Besides all the other mentioned points, I think a good remaining less-discussed point is that quality in software has always been in the eye of the beholder. You may very well see the AI ou
16.
by vouwfietsman 1mo ago
> Representatives are merely messengers No, that is not how representation works. The representative represents , i.e they act in the absence of the citizen. They are not the human equivalent of an email broker. > representatives are
17.
by vouwfietsman 1mo ago
> In a democracy, consumers and the government are the exact same thing. This is a straw man. Consumers are represented by representatives who should have their interests in mind, e.g the consumer votes for someone who in turn vote
18.
by vouwfietsman 1mo ago
No, this is not the way to go. Consumers cannot possibly understand all potential ways in which they can be screwed over, and even if they could, it is entirely likely that there are no good choices because consumers will have to choose bet
19.
by vouwfietsman 1mo ago
> You are moving the goalpost here if you think the chess AI was AGI Indeed I would be, but I don't, so I'm not. What I'm saying is that nobody understands either creativity or intelligence, and people keep listing behavi
20.
by vouwfietsman 1mo ago
> Why do you think that? From (highly upvoted) parent: > LLMs are text-prediction engines. They are not Artificial Intelligence, and shouldn’t not be treated in any form or fashion as if they possess intelligence > LLM-based “AI” .
21.
by vouwfietsman 1mo ago
> brains are next token predictors Of the vast uncertainties and philosophical exercises that we must face to bridge the chasm between where we are now, and where we will be when we understand intelligence, I can take comfort in claiming
22.
by vouwfietsman 1mo ago
> they will keep making strong statements about things they don't understand until they are fundamentally changed If ever there was a human quality. Also, your explanation of "dumb" is really favoring the anti-llm side, an
23.
by vouwfietsman 1mo ago
> But if that actually solves it then Solves what? Chess? No thats not AI, its just a chess bot. Turing test? No, thats not AI, its just a dumb token predictor. Why would the goalposts stop moving at AGI? I am 100% convinced it will some
24.
by vouwfietsman 1mo ago
> I don't think LLM will ever stop being dumb without such an introspective part to them. The very second they add this part, it will "just be a dumb token predictor with introspection", mark my words.
25.
by vouwfietsman 1mo ago
It can be a token predictor and still tell me exactly how my life will proceed from now until the indefinite future, or be the most intelligent conversational entity you have ever witnessed. The issue is of course with using the word "
26.
by vouwfietsman 1mo ago
Right, it follows naturally that one can never meaningfully discuss that which can only be settled by proving negatives. Hence the total lack of debate on religious topics, as everyone just gave up 1500 years ago and decided that God indeed
27.
by vouwfietsman 1mo ago
Does a dog possess intelligence? Does a bird? Does a cricket? An amoeba? I hate AI slop as much as the next guy but the amount of tribalism over AI is taking near-religious forms. Nobody knows what intelligence is, therefore we don't k
28.
by vouwfietsman 2mo ago
> Malicious compliance is a result of incompetent drafting Aha ok, so your judgement of an entire governmental apparatus, trying to influence and predict millions of people in hundreds of thousands of companies and across hundreds of ind
29.
by vouwfietsman 2mo ago
You are right, and this is why not everything should be a stock. Whatever they will cut to avoid emitting "a bad sign", may involve: * firing people * making services worse * sacrificing their own future Whether it actually does i
30.
by vouwfietsman 2mo ago
> pruning off failing things is not only good, it's the core of capitalism It's quite serious that you see "being good" as something inferior to "the core of capitalism". Also, the core of capitalism is maki

More ›