cauch

12 ms·

91.
by cauch 3mo ago
Let me answer to your 2 comments here. My criticism against YAGNI as a sane approach is not that things cannot be out-of-scope or over-engineered. My criticism against YAGNI is that it teaches developers to be unable to see a situation and
92.
by cauch 3mo ago
> It’s about something that has no value for today’s context superseding something that do. But this is incorrect. Chet is saying "if we interpret today's requirement this way, what we do today has no value, if we interpret to
93.
by cauch 3mo ago
> There’s a simple solution for today’s requirement, and there’s a complicated solution that will also solve a future, not existing yet, requirement. There are tons of examples that show that your reasoning is incorrect. Let's inven
94.
by cauch 3mo ago
> The first paragraph set the context The first paragraph is exactly what I've observed that make me think YAGNI is a bad practice. 3 weeks is very short, it's basically next Sprint. This stupid developer is, without flinching,
95.
by cauch 3mo ago
Look at the article itself: > Chet said, “You don’t understand. We’re definitely going to need it. See, here’s an example…” > Me (interrupting), “You aren’t going to need it.” > Chet, get frustrated, “But we really are…” > Me, “
96.
by cauch 3mo ago
> My judgement is based upon my experience trying it both ways many times over the course of decades. You miss my point: if you are the person who develop the code, your judgement is biased, because you are not the user. You will judge t
97.
by cauch 3mo ago
> I have never found it more expensive to create an abstraction after following the rule of 3. This is the problem: your judgement is biased. You think it was a good idea, but in reality, you have no real idea if it was or not. Don'
98.
by cauch 3mo ago
The problem is that YAGNI is __literally__ predicting the future: you ain't gonna need it. How do they know that, if it is not a prediction? In the examples I have observed, your 3 points were made impossible because early on people sa
99.
by cauch 3mo ago
I would say: if the feature is from a developer, high probability of YAGNI, if the feature is from a user, medium probability of YAGNI.
100.
by cauch 3mo ago
I agree. Nothing is all black or white of course, but I have personally observed situations where software engineers started with YAGNI and then said "that will require too much restructuring, we went into another direction, so, no, we
101.
by cauch 3mo ago
People may grow up or may not grow up. If at 20, you don't act like that, then there is no question (and it is possible. In my 20's I was briefly a webmaster for a small org, and I noticed I had access of private info, and unlike
102.
by cauch 4mo ago
You seems to be the pedantic one here: ask anyone in the street "what does it mean to not have much space in a room", they will never answer "having a big room surface but the stuffs in the room are spread so that there is no
103.
by cauch 4mo ago
> how are these different? Well, if you have 1000 places of 1 square mile and 0 space of 4 square miles, the available space is 1000 square miles. If you have 100 places of 4 square miles, the available space is 400 square miles. You can
104.
by cauch 4mo ago
Even like that, it is not clear-cut. 1/5 in 1/2 the time is still 2.5 shorter per worker, and building in parallel require multiplying expert builders, which is not easy (as it takes time to acquire the expertise and you don'
105.
by cauch 4mo ago
well, I don't think that there is a real problem of "1 square mile is available but not 4 square miles" (this is a different sentence than "there is not enough space"). Especially as small reactor also need to be pl
106.
by cauch 4mo ago
Just a guess (I'm not the previous user), but I guess you need to look at the space _per GWh_? If a big nuclear reactor takes 10x more space but has 20x more capacity, then it means not having much space favors the big nuclear reactor
107.
by cauch 4mo ago
I will not thank you, talking with you was a waste of time. I've just read https://jamesfbaker.substack.com/p/why-the-ai-renaissance-ke... (and the Rich Sutton take on AI creativity, too) that explains exactly the
108.
by cauch 4mo ago
Ok, I've stopped reading half way because it is useless. Your reflection does not bring anything concrete, it is just you trying to play on semantic and loose the point. For example, you just moved the definition problem to "novel
109.
by cauch 4mo ago
1. Okay with your definition. My point is that you can have the same result with a representation that "closely matches the topology of the relationships being modelled". For example, a representation that "allows relationshi
110.
by cauch 4mo ago
Yes, this conversation is useless. You keep saying "what I observe with GenAI can only be the result of 'understanding'" without providing any proofs at all. Just few beliefs. You just say "look at this behavior, th
111.
by cauch 4mo ago
> I am not sure what you mean by complex combinatorial. If we are talking about combinatorial, its combinatorial. N can be very large, but it is going to scale like combinatorial, not something else. The way a LLM works is by creating a
112.
by cauch 4mo ago
> REASON 1 This just means "simpler representations are not enough", not "good representations cannot be complex combinatorial combinations" (complex enough that it is very different to see them for a human). > REA
113.
by cauch 4mo ago
> Models clearly do. Mix up the most unlikely combination of non-trivial subjects, and they response sensibly. Those are not averaged, interpolated by any order, or even combinatorially interactions. How do you even know it is the case?
114.
by cauch 4mo ago
I don't think that it is what means the parent comment you answer. The comment you answer to says that their experience is that AI and the human brain are not analogous and that AI is good to store large amount of knowledge and repeat
115.
by cauch 4mo ago
Wow, I don't think you understood at all. First, the "13+7" is an analogy. In this analogy, "13+7" is not the real question you ask, it represents _any questions_, not just arithmetic. But secondly, did you even not
116.
by cauch 4mo ago
I don't understand the comments of the kind of "same is true with human". This feels a bit like whataboutism. It also feels like people don't listen to each others. For example, reading the previous comment, it feels lik
117.
by cauch 4mo ago
Well, then you basically agree with Chiang's article. Just that Chiang as a clever usage of the word "understanding" than you (more clever because more nuanced: 1) I doubt that "people on the street" will agree that
118.
by cauch 4mo ago
Not sure what you mean. I'm happy both ways: Either you say that a pocket calculator understands arithmetic, and that LLM understand language, which is something trivial. If a pocket calculator understands arithmetic, than previous sub
119.
by cauch 4mo ago
> There are definitely cognitive feedback loops Have you read the article in question. It is saying that for one continuous thought, the brain will use different part of the brain to do different thing. It does not say that there is a &q
120.
by cauch 4mo ago
No. OP says: LLMs never think when not invoked. What you said: I have example where, sometimes, human think when invoked. That's the difference: human brains are intrinsically different because they are built to be able to think withou

More ›