znnajdla

6 ms·

1.
by znnajdla 3d ago
What is LE? Let’s Encrypt?
2.
by znnajdla 4d ago
It does make a difference because the only reason OpenAI cares about these problems in particular versus any other random problem in math is because of the prestige associated with official recognition, not just claiming something as market
3.
by znnajdla 4d ago
I don't know how this is not obvious to anyone, but the only way to slow down AI progress is an actual world war.
4.
by znnajdla 4d ago
Have you actually used the latest Chinese models? Because, in my experience, they're not just cheaper, they're actually better in many cases. In one recent experiment I did a few days ago on a task that I need in production at sca
5.
by znnajdla 4d ago
”Fuck it, make it anyway“ is absolutely the best advice I can give to programmers going through the crisis. Just make something that people want and you may find the joy of building again.
6.
by znnajdla 4d ago
> And yes, it will reduce your value in the job market. Eventually it will be a dramatic reduction. Maybe not. Look up Jevons paradox. Maybe software engineering was a bit overvalued before, anyway. And now it'll come down a bit. Bu
7.
by znnajdla 4d ago
Couldn't disagree more. Here's how I look at it as a person who wrote my code by hand for 15 years. I'm the owner of my own small bootstrapped startup. 1. I've always been enjoyed delivering solutions more than the actua
8.
by znnajdla 6d ago
Correction: OpenAI takes credit for what it's model spits out in response to other people's prompts. That's even worse.
9.
by znnajdla 6d ago
Sounds like you just copy-pasted from AI without even understanding what you're talking about. Based on what you're saying, you're claiming this is Grossman's work, not Einstein's. Why don't we rewrite scientif
10.
by znnajdla 6d ago
The difference is that Einstein didn't literally have someone prompting him towards his result.
11.
by znnajdla 7d ago
My point is if you're not a mathematician on the level of Terence Tao you wouldn't have been able to get this result. Thus, AI cannot be credited with the result. Because it's not AI that did it, it's the human that used
12.
by znnajdla 7d ago
I think you're not aware of the specifics of this case. A mathematician worked on the prompts for over a year to get this proof. Look up the details.
13.
by znnajdla 7d ago
Mostly low-level performance optimization and new programming language design.
14.
by znnajdla 7d ago
So, what if they surpass me? It's still a tool under my control. Many engineers work under the authority of a CEO, even though they're smarter than them. Just because AI might be more intelligent doesn't mean it's still
15.
by znnajdla 7d ago
I don't get this take at all. Do you feel inferior that bears are stronger than you? Or that a machine can lift more weight than you? Or that a calculator can calculate faster than you? These AI things are machines which are completely
16.
by znnajdla 7d ago
My point is, the AI could not have done what it did without the skilled mathemetician prompting it. It was just a tool in the hands of the human that did it. And that was a very skilled human. Unless you're a professional mathematician
17.
by znnajdla 7d ago
> That an AI was able to synthesize all the work and bring it forward But that's not what it did. A mathematician literally prompted it towards that, helping it every step of the way for years. And only the mathematician was able to
18.
by znnajdla 7d ago
I think the author is not aware of how much the Millennium Prize proof was actually driven by a human working for years towards that problem. The AI did not solve this on its own. A world class mathematician prompted it towards the proof.
19.
by znnajdla 7d ago
I don't think humans necessarily become subpar when AI can do most of the work. Taking my own personal example, I have far more intellectual curiosity and improved my skills in programming far more with Claude Code than for 15 years of
20.
by znnajdla 7d ago
It's hard even for a lot of tech people to use AI at its peak power. Many of the programmers I know are not using it nearly as much as they could.
21.
by znnajdla 7d ago
Maybe it's a lag, or maybe it's just that other parts of the world have their own trajectory.
22.
by znnajdla 7d ago
There is a well known problem with LLMs that if you feed it its own output, it gradually gets worse and worse. We haven't really understood what the limitations of LLMs are. And I do not know. But as a person who uses Fable and Sol reg
23.
by znnajdla 8d ago
This is a problem with every technology product. Before Facebook and Gmail had strong institutional controls, any employee could just open anybody's email and private messages on a whim. Now things are a bit more strict for random empl
24.
by znnajdla 8d ago
Never underestimate a small dedicated underdog. You never know who might catch up later in the race
25.
by znnajdla 8d ago
I can think of one use case for this: Dashboards to answer one-off questions. Think PowerBI, Tableau, etc.
26.
by znnajdla 8d ago
The most interesting part about this for me is that they decided to create their own language or DSL for the task at hand. So it's not just a large language model; it's an LLM with its own language. I have a feeling that the best
27.
by znnajdla 10d ago
This is an article about declining literacy in the West. But this is notably a Western decline problem. In some other parts of the world, literacy is improving. One of the first things I noticed when I moved to Ukraine in 2020 was that even
28.
by znnajdla 10d ago
Sure, I already do that at my company. Before I go to sleep, I put Opus 5 in bypass permissions mode and give it SSH access to my server and tell it to restart it or take necessary actions to keep the server online while I sleep. I could ea
29.
by znnajdla 10d ago
What does it mean to be AI controlled? Somebody had to give it a bank account, a prompt, a harness and tell it to build a company. If that's what you mean by AI-controlled, then my startup is AI-controlled. I operated as a one-man boot
30.
by znnajdla 10d ago
You may have never met the CEO, but I am sure that the CEO or founder was not living in a cave the entire time. They may not have talked to you, but they certainly had their inner circle built in-person at some point.

More ›