2 ms·

> Warning: This went viral, be careful as there are a lot of scam projects trying to capitalize on this. We have nothing to do with them. I'm doubling down on

> Warning: This went viral, be careful as there are a lot of scam projects trying to capitalize on this. We have nothing to do with them. I'm doubling down on my thesis. All this "AI" crap is Web3 2.0. It's nothing but scams on scams.

huevosabio 2y ago
No, Web3 had little to show other than scams. This AI wave is so good that it makes it easy to create scams. So you get a lot of noise.
- dingnuts 2y ago
  Citation heavily needed. What AIs do you use, and how much do you pay monthly for your usage, and for how much usage? If there are limits imposed on your account, how often do you hit them? Since it's pay per token, I would be a lot more likely to take my credit card and sign up for one of these services (they are all rather expensive to an individual) if I could get my money back for any tokens that generate hallucinations. Why would I pay for tokens that generate lies? Scam. It's literally gambling. Put in a quarter and you might get the answer you wanted easier than searching. Didn't get it? Well, put in another quarter, rejigger your prompt, and pull the lever again. Maybe the slot machine will give you the result you want, this time. Oh, it didn't? Well, the sunk cost got a little bigger. Better pull again..
  - SamPatt 2y ago
    Sorry, but this is a ridiculous rant. Hallucinations have become much less common among the SOTA models, especially for coding with good guidance. I've been using Claude Sonnet 3.7 a lot the last two days, and to my knowledge, there have been zero hallucinations. It just does what I ask. But when they do make coding mistakes - so what? So do humans. I use it for non-coding questions all the time. The idea that the utility I get is completely negated because of occasional hallucinations is absurd. Have you used any tools like Aider, Cursor or Code?
    - jcgrillo 2y ago
      > But when they do make coding mistakes - so what? So do humans. Surely we can do better than that. "Coding mistakes" are OK, so long as they're caught by review. However, engineers who continually make tons of mistakes without improving over time are liable to annoy their colleagues to the point of quitting, or alternatively (and hopefully more likely) asking management to remove the defective engineer. So the open question is: Do these tools make PRs that are irritating to review? Another related and arguably more important open question is: Does widespread use of "AI" tools in an engineering department result in significantly more defects being deployed in production? Another important question: Are codebases which have evolved over a period of years in an organization which makes heavy use of "AI" tools more or less easy to understand? Another question: Is the MTTR of incidents affected by the use of "AI" coding tools? I could go on, but the point is absolutely not "oh well devs make mistakes so do LLMs whatever who cares?" Until these questions are answerable concretely, this is nothing but a research topic. It's worth zero dollars. It's a fuckin' NFT.
      - SamPatt 2y ago
        You sound like an old engineer who believes that the process you've mastered is the only conceivable way to do things. Saying LLMs are worth zero dollars shows a disconnection from reality so profound that I doubt you'll ever be able to admit you were wrong. I wish you all the best with your remaining career.
        jcgrillo 2y ago
        You know, I hope you're right. I'm tired, and I'd love to retire. If your techno-rapture is indeed imminent I'll soon be able to do that. Unfortunately, I can't join you in this cultish belief system. I have had the benefit of boom upon bust and hype cycles upon hype cycles, "AI" summers, "AI" winters, and more clever little spacecamp boondoggles and silly con valley grifter scams than I can count. And I'm not even 40 yet. So I'll believe it when I see it. You think you can change the world with chatcoin or whatever, go do it! Prove me wrong! I'm not betting on you. Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it has been playing on a loop in my mind for the past few months... I wonder why?

huevosabio 2y ago

No, Web3 had little to show other than scams. This AI wave is so good that it makes it easy to create scams. So you get a lot of noise.

dingnuts 2y ago
Citation heavily needed. What AIs do you use, and how much do you pay monthly for your usage, and for how much usage? If there are limits imposed on your account, how often do you hit them? Since it's pay per token, I would be a lot more likely to take my credit card and sign up for one of these services (they are all rather expensive to an individual) if I could get my money back for any tokens that generate hallucinations. Why would I pay for tokens that generate lies? Scam. It's literally gambling. Put in a quarter and you might get the answer you wanted easier than searching. Didn't get it? Well, put in another quarter, rejigger your prompt, and pull the lever again. Maybe the slot machine will give you the result you want, this time. Oh, it didn't? Well, the sunk cost got a little bigger. Better pull again..
- SamPatt 2y ago
  Sorry, but this is a ridiculous rant. Hallucinations have become much less common among the SOTA models, especially for coding with good guidance. I've been using Claude Sonnet 3.7 a lot the last two days, and to my knowledge, there have been zero hallucinations. It just does what I ask. But when they do make coding mistakes - so what? So do humans. I use it for non-coding questions all the time. The idea that the utility I get is completely negated because of occasional hallucinations is absurd. Have you used any tools like Aider, Cursor or Code?
  - jcgrillo 2y ago
    > But when they do make coding mistakes - so what? So do humans. Surely we can do better than that. "Coding mistakes" are OK, so long as they're caught by review. However, engineers who continually make tons of mistakes without improving over time are liable to annoy their colleagues to the point of quitting, or alternatively (and hopefully more likely) asking management to remove the defective engineer. So the open question is: Do these tools make PRs that are irritating to review? Another related and arguably more important open question is: Does widespread use of "AI" tools in an engineering department result in significantly more defects being deployed in production? Another important question: Are codebases which have evolved over a period of years in an organization which makes heavy use of "AI" tools more or less easy to understand? Another question: Is the MTTR of incidents affected by the use of "AI" coding tools? I could go on, but the point is absolutely not "oh well devs make mistakes so do LLMs whatever who cares?" Until these questions are answerable concretely, this is nothing but a research topic. It's worth zero dollars. It's a fuckin' NFT.
    - SamPatt 2y ago
      You sound like an old engineer who believes that the process you've mastered is the only conceivable way to do things. Saying LLMs are worth zero dollars shows a disconnection from reality so profound that I doubt you'll ever be able to admit you were wrong. I wish you all the best with your remaining career.
      - jcgrillo 2y ago
        You know, I hope you're right. I'm tired, and I'd love to retire. If your techno-rapture is indeed imminent I'll soon be able to do that. Unfortunately, I can't join you in this cultish belief system. I have had the benefit of boom upon bust and hype cycles upon hype cycles, "AI" summers, "AI" winters, and more clever little spacecamp boondoggles and silly con valley grifter scams than I can count. And I'm not even 40 yet. So I'll believe it when I see it. You think you can change the world with chatcoin or whatever, go do it! Prove me wrong! I'm not betting on you. Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it has been playing on a loop in my mind for the past few months... I wonder why?