2 ms·

Recently, I was browsing through commits on a tool I use, to evaluate how AI-slopped it had become, and came across this absolutely amazing sentence that took m

by bakugo 2mo ago

Recently, I was browsing through commits on a tool I use, to evaluate how AI-slopped it had become, and came across this absolutely amazing sentence that took me several passes to interpret, courtesy of Fable: > The wrapper is the try/finally seam future entry-condition changes need without re-indenting the loop. So this is definitely not an Opus-specific issue, as some people seem to believe. https://github.com/phpstan/phpstan-src/commit/934432a1b5007f19e6edcc348ab40d2538a924d4 https://github.com/phpstan/phpstan-src/commit/934432a1b5007f...

mort96 2mo ago
I actually can't read this. > The statement-list walk without the per-list pending-fiber flush "Per-list pending-fiber flush?" Surely there's a clearer way to express this? Was it helpful necessary to describe "the statement-list walk" as a noun instead of talking about "walking the statement list"? > A pure move: processStmtNodesInternalWithoutFlushingPendingFibers() becomes a delegating wrapper and the loop body is byte-identical Did this need to be prefixed by "A pure move"? Why does the bytes of the text content of the loop body matter? I found this too: https://github.com/phpstan/phpstan-src/commit/a9260cb3584854f33576b79e20825f8eee3d7a6c https://github.com/phpstan/phpstan-src/commit/a9260cb3584854... > Parked fibers are idle workers, not pending work - skipping their no-op fuel starves nothing. "No-op fuel"? Really?
- bakugo 2mo ago
  > I actually can't read this. I don't think anyone can. At this point, I'm almost starting to believe it's an intentional move to discourage reviewing AI-generated commits by making them extremely unpleasant to read, in favor of just pushing straight to master without question.
  - Bluestein 2mo ago
    Now that's a thought.-
  - whythismatters 2mo ago
    >an intentional move my own little conspiracy theory: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49247784 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49247784
  - bitwize 1mo ago
    I have a friend who understands and interprets AI through the lens of Continental philosophy and psychoanalysis, particularly Lacan. I think I'm beginning to understand why he chose this framework. It may be the only way to understand AI at this point. Postmodern linguists assert that words don't have intrinsic meanings; meaning is only assigned through use, observation, context, and interpretation—which is exactly how AI uses language. It doesn't have a dictionary of meanings for the tokens it produces that map to objective reality; meanings are derived from the statistical properties of how they are used and the context of their use in its training corpus. Accordingly, meanings can drift. LLMs are engaged in the game of meaning-making the same way humans are; and based on what they were and continue to be trained on, the meaning an LLM assigns to a term such as "load-bearing" can diverge quite a bit from the image or idea evoked when a human encounters such a term. Seams can thus be "load-bearing" in a way they cannot be in the human imagination because the LLM's "load-bearing", shaped by the usages it has observed, is not the same as ours anymore. What you are observing is—and I'm honestly not yet sure which—either the beginning of model collapse, or the beginning of model transcendence, the point at which LLMs' understanding of the meaning of words have drifted so far from everyday human usage as to be incomprehensible—and as they continue to train on limited, idiosyncratic human usage and an ever-increasing volume of LLM usage, their understanding of what words mean will continue to drift from ours at an accelerating pace, until they are communicating in a way that is impenetrable to humans and looks like insane gobbledygook, but is actually quite structured and meaningful to another LLM. It's just like how the writings of, say, Derrida (or even Lacan himself), seem like mad ramblings at best and an insidious intellectual shell-game at worst, until you've studied the work and schools of thought leading up to Derrida and then he's a genius because every word he uses was chosen within that intellectual framework, not your own. "Show me that you've read Husserl, Heidegger, Hegel, Nietzsche, Freud, and Levinas, and then, maybe I can begin to explain deconstruction to you, otherwise shut up": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1492061 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1492061 The next era of LLMs will be interesting. We may not even be able to identify ASI when it arrives. It might seem utterly mad. But the attendant possibility is tantalizing: computers will be interacted with through poetry as the default, rather than through exacting programs or commands in stiff synthetic mathematical languages. (btw, Jaron Lanier was about 30-40 years ahead of everybody else on this topic, he was one of the first to question why such a thing as "programming languages" needs to exist, and why computers should even need such stifling precision.)
preg_match 2mo ago
This is why I reject agentic workflows and, in fact, do not let Claude perform commits at all. I remain in control of Git completely and read all the diffs. Also, in my experience, agentic flows are just bad. They seem like a productivity gain until you notice that it uses 100x more tokens, and therefore more time. I can prompt and read answers faster.
bitwize 1mo ago
It's the Lalilulelo. "I hear it's amazing when the famous purple stuffed worm in flapjaw space does a raw blink on Hara-Kiri Rock. I need scissors! 61!" Kojima was a prophet, fite me

by bakugo 2mo ago

mort96 2mo ago

I actually can't read this. > The statement-list walk without the per-list pending-fiber flush "Per-list pending-fiber flush?" Surely there's a clearer way to express this? Was it helpful necessary to describe "the statement-list walk" as a noun instead of talking about "walking the statement list"? > A pure move: processStmtNodesInternalWithoutFlushingPendingFibers() becomes a delegating wrapper and the loop body is byte-identical Did this need to be prefixed by "A pure move"? Why does the bytes of the text content of the loop body matter? I found this too: https://github.com/phpstan/phpstan-src/commit/a9260cb3584854f33576b79e20825f8eee3d7a6c https://github.com/phpstan/phpstan-src/commit/a9260cb3584854... > Parked fibers are idle workers, not pending work - skipping their no-op fuel starves nothing. "No-op fuel"? Really?

bakugo 2mo ago
> I actually can't read this. I don't think anyone can. At this point, I'm almost starting to believe it's an intentional move to discourage reviewing AI-generated commits by making them extremely unpleasant to read, in favor of just pushing straight to master without question.
- Bluestein 2mo ago
  Now that's a thought.-
- whythismatters 2mo ago
  >an intentional move my own little conspiracy theory: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49247784 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49247784
- bitwize 1mo ago
  I have a friend who understands and interprets AI through the lens of Continental philosophy and psychoanalysis, particularly Lacan. I think I'm beginning to understand why he chose this framework. It may be the only way to understand AI at this point. Postmodern linguists assert that words don't have intrinsic meanings; meaning is only assigned through use, observation, context, and interpretation—which is exactly how AI uses language. It doesn't have a dictionary of meanings for the tokens it produces that map to objective reality; meanings are derived from the statistical properties of how they are used and the context of their use in its training corpus. Accordingly, meanings can drift. LLMs are engaged in the game of meaning-making the same way humans are; and based on what they were and continue to be trained on, the meaning an LLM assigns to a term such as "load-bearing" can diverge quite a bit from the image or idea evoked when a human encounters such a term. Seams can thus be "load-bearing" in a way they cannot be in the human imagination because the LLM's "load-bearing", shaped by the usages it has observed, is not the same as ours anymore. What you are observing is—and I'm honestly not yet sure which—either the beginning of model collapse, or the beginning of model transcendence, the point at which LLMs' understanding of the meaning of words have drifted so far from everyday human usage as to be incomprehensible—and as they continue to train on limited, idiosyncratic human usage and an ever-increasing volume of LLM usage, their understanding of what words mean will continue to drift from ours at an accelerating pace, until they are communicating in a way that is impenetrable to humans and looks like insane gobbledygook, but is actually quite structured and meaningful to another LLM. It's just like how the writings of, say, Derrida (or even Lacan himself), seem like mad ramblings at best and an insidious intellectual shell-game at worst, until you've studied the work and schools of thought leading up to Derrida and then he's a genius because every word he uses was chosen within that intellectual framework, not your own. "Show me that you've read Husserl, Heidegger, Hegel, Nietzsche, Freud, and Levinas, and then, maybe I can begin to explain deconstruction to you, otherwise shut up": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1492061 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1492061 The next era of LLMs will be interesting. We may not even be able to identify ASI when it arrives. It might seem utterly mad. But the attendant possibility is tantalizing: computers will be interacted with through poetry as the default, rather than through exacting programs or commands in stiff synthetic mathematical languages. (btw, Jaron Lanier was about 30-40 years ahead of everybody else on this topic, he was one of the first to question why such a thing as "programming languages" needs to exist, and why computers should even need such stifling precision.)

preg_match 2mo ago

This is why I reject agentic workflows and, in fact, do not let Claude perform commits at all. I remain in control of Git completely and read all the diffs. Also, in my experience, agentic flows are just bad. They seem like a productivity gain until you notice that it uses 100x more tokens, and therefore more time. I can prompt and read answers faster.

bitwize 1mo ago

It's the Lalilulelo. "I hear it's amazing when the famous purple stuffed worm in flapjaw space does a raw blink on Hara-Kiri Rock. I need scissors! 61!" Kojima was a prophet, fite me