4 ms·

> No it does not. Does an assistant have to be as qualified as their boss? The delusion that LLMs or so-called "AI" must be equals to their human overseers is

> No it does not. Does an assistant have to be as qualified as their boss? The delusion that LLMs or so-called "AI" must be equals to their human overseers is laughable. If these tools are to transcend their current role as mere comic relief, it's crucial to recognize that in any functional hierarchy, the "supervisors" are the true senior figures. This nonsense about management being a separate entity might apply in the tech bubble, but in the real economy, it's a fantasy—one that any serious adult left the cradle believing. > This is completely irrelevant. The LLM can understand your instructions and it can type 30,000 times faster than you. I suppose this sounds like some sort of achievement—though why anyone would be impressed is beyond me. It reveals an ignorance so profound that it fails even to reach the bar of a lackluster undergraduate's grasp of what non-deterministic polynomial time entails.

Eisenstein 2y ago
> It reveals an ignorance so profound that it fails even to reach the bar of a lackluster undergraduate's grasp of what non-deterministic polynomial time entails. I say this with all honesty and with good faith: you should reflect on what motivated you to write that sentence and reassess why you thought it would be appropriate or clever. By writing such a thing you are embarrassing yourself and revealing a deep insecurity. It is also poorly phrased and sounds contrived. Do better.
- infamouscow 2y ago
  My derision is not only warranted, it's practically charitable given the absurdity on display. The fundamental misunderstanding paraded here isn't just embarrassing; it's symptomatic of the broader intellectual decay that now passes for discourse in tech circles. Let's cut through the nonsense: the speed at which an LLM processes text is neither remarkable nor revolutionary—it's a brute-force algorithm churning through data with all the grace of a sledgehammer. By current standards, it's laughably inefficient, and your fixation on it reveals a stunning lack of depth. If you attempted to peddle these claims in a serious computer science department, you’d be met with the kind of laughter reserved for first-year undergraduates who haven’t yet grasped the basics. And as for your response—how utterly pathetic. If my comparison of LLM efficiency to non-deterministic polynomial time were truly as off-base as you'd like to pretend, you'd have taken the time to refute it properly, to demonstrate where I’ve gone wrong. But instead, you've chosen the coward's path: declaring your supposed superiority while sidestepping any actual argument. You didn't refute my point because you couldn't, and now you resort to some vague, self-righteous posturing, suggesting that I should feel embarrassed. The only embarrassment here is yours—for thinking such a shallow tactic could pass for a real rebuttal. It's also come to my attention that all this ridiculous AI hype marketing is having a far more sinister effect—it's causing some of the brightest young minds to give up before they even start. This is something I refuse to accept. If crushing the ignorant morons who perpetuate nonsense means I come across as mean, then so be it. I'll gladly take that role if it means clearing the path for those who actually have the potential to contribute something real to tech, rather than getting lost in the hype-fueled fog of delusion. And if you think this is some grand breakthrough, let me assure you, those who actually know what they're talking about predicted ChatGPT's emergence just over a year before it became a buzzword to the public. These same experts, the ones who haven't overdosed on AI hype, would be the first to tell you that you’ve been duped—hook, line, and sinker.
  - Eisenstein 2y ago
    It is obvious you are playing a character and get a kick out of trolling people you think are beneath you. It won't fill that need for validation you have, though. I suggest you pivot and volunteer teaching code to seniors or something wholesome so you can fulfill your emotional void with good deeds.

Eisenstein 2y ago

> It reveals an ignorance so profound that it fails even to reach the bar of a lackluster undergraduate's grasp of what non-deterministic polynomial time entails. I say this with all honesty and with good faith: you should reflect on what motivated you to write that sentence and reassess why you thought it would be appropriate or clever. By writing such a thing you are embarrassing yourself and revealing a deep insecurity. It is also poorly phrased and sounds contrived. Do better.

infamouscow 2y ago
My derision is not only warranted, it's practically charitable given the absurdity on display. The fundamental misunderstanding paraded here isn't just embarrassing; it's symptomatic of the broader intellectual decay that now passes for discourse in tech circles. Let's cut through the nonsense: the speed at which an LLM processes text is neither remarkable nor revolutionary—it's a brute-force algorithm churning through data with all the grace of a sledgehammer. By current standards, it's laughably inefficient, and your fixation on it reveals a stunning lack of depth. If you attempted to peddle these claims in a serious computer science department, you’d be met with the kind of laughter reserved for first-year undergraduates who haven’t yet grasped the basics. And as for your response—how utterly pathetic. If my comparison of LLM efficiency to non-deterministic polynomial time were truly as off-base as you'd like to pretend, you'd have taken the time to refute it properly, to demonstrate where I’ve gone wrong. But instead, you've chosen the coward's path: declaring your supposed superiority while sidestepping any actual argument. You didn't refute my point because you couldn't, and now you resort to some vague, self-righteous posturing, suggesting that I should feel embarrassed. The only embarrassment here is yours—for thinking such a shallow tactic could pass for a real rebuttal. It's also come to my attention that all this ridiculous AI hype marketing is having a far more sinister effect—it's causing some of the brightest young minds to give up before they even start. This is something I refuse to accept. If crushing the ignorant morons who perpetuate nonsense means I come across as mean, then so be it. I'll gladly take that role if it means clearing the path for those who actually have the potential to contribute something real to tech, rather than getting lost in the hype-fueled fog of delusion. And if you think this is some grand breakthrough, let me assure you, those who actually know what they're talking about predicted ChatGPT's emergence just over a year before it became a buzzword to the public. These same experts, the ones who haven't overdosed on AI hype, would be the first to tell you that you’ve been duped—hook, line, and sinker.
- Eisenstein 2y ago
  It is obvious you are playing a character and get a kick out of trolling people you think are beneath you. It won't fill that need for validation you have, though. I suggest you pivot and volunteer teaching code to seniors or something wholesome so you can fulfill your emotional void with good deeds.