dannersy

5 ms·

31.
by dannersy 4mo ago
True. The techno optimists seem to think it is justified for a chance to cure a disease.
32.
by dannersy 5mo ago
It is cold for me to not want to concede everything to billionaires to cure a disease? You are short sighted, as I would argue the reverse is cold.
33.
by dannersy 5mo ago
I am okay with Alzheimer's not being cured if it means we are not bending over backwards to welcome a billionaire overlord class. I don't think Altman or Amodei give a fuck about Alzheimer's unless a cure gives them a reason
34.
by dannersy 5mo ago
It is honestly offensive to me that this isn't plainly obvious to everyone. AI has never, ever, and never will be, about making life better for the average human. It has always been, and always will be, about wealth consolidation and c
35.
by dannersy 5mo ago
Okay?
36.
by dannersy 5mo ago
Because then we already have it, and if we do, it is pretty underwhelming.
37.
by dannersy 5mo ago
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2604.04721
38.
by dannersy 5mo ago
This is the new old way. This was fine before irresponsible use of AI. Between vibe coding and using AI to find vulnerabilities as a result of vibes, I'm afraid that we will have to find ways to have more controlled environments.
39.
by dannersy 5mo ago
Low cost to entry, easy to get scale from the beginning if you need it. The large cloud providers throw free credit at startups to lock them in all the time. I had a short lived stint trying to get my own startup off the ground and it was r
40.
by dannersy 5mo ago
> Anti-AI Devs/Techies have their heads in the sand or/and resorting to binary thinking when it comes to AI. The goal posts are being moved, yet again, as the reality of generative AI's usefulness starts to narrow. I think
41.
by dannersy 5mo ago
This post is delusional. There nothing liberating about generative AI and folks aren't investing hundreds of billions because they think it will liberate people.
42.
by dannersy 5mo ago
I was down voted pretty hard for calling this comment out. I would say I'm surprised but honestly? Completely predictable.
43.
by dannersy 5mo ago
I can say from expertise that vibing a full move of any project from one language to another is probably not a great way to evaluate if the decision is a good one. I got downvoted, maybe I said it too authoritatively. But hey, that is just
44.
by dannersy 5mo ago
Since when was HN ever about asked for criticism?
45.
by dannersy 5mo ago
I think the criticism is still a valid to an extent because I don't see how this would give you a good way to evaluate Zig vs. Rust. Maybe a better approach is to migrate a particularly problematic space and bench that on its own?
46.
by dannersy 6mo ago
While I agree, I think that the reward is that when I write things myself I have to revisit that code much less frequently than those who are vibing their services. I'm sure someone will tell me that the person didn't prompt it ri
47.
by dannersy 6mo ago
Can we please stop anthropomorphizing LLMs? It is extremely unhealthy and seems like it feeds into people's irresponsible use of a tool that could otherwise be useful if we stopped treating prediction machines like what they are not.
48.
by dannersy 6mo ago
No one uses it this way, despite what people say. They hit any sort of wall and then ask the robot. Thought ends.
49.
by dannersy 6mo ago
Beautifully stated and I couldn't agree more. This is my experience.
50.
by dannersy 6mo ago
I am paid far less than what I'm worth to work at a company that is as close to ethically neutral as I could find. The next step would be nonprofits, but there aren't many and a lot of times they can't justify my pay, underst
51.
by dannersy 6mo ago
Honestly, it isn't particularly good at greenfield stuff. It's a mess all around. Seeing the claims that AI is better at code than humans has been a failure for my direct experience and those I know who work at larger companies. I
52.
by dannersy 6mo ago
Yeah, my only hope is that this is unsustainable, admittedly for selfish reasons. I know plenty of engineers being forced to use these tools whether they want to or not. A lot of which are okay with using AI liberally, but don't partic
53.
by dannersy 6mo ago
No, you have gone off in your own tangent. The person you're responding to is talking about money and my point is that you're using a misleading metric. Even if the current user base is paying more for the "exponential token
54.
by dannersy 6mo ago
So as I said, a self interested metric who also controls how many tokens it takes to get a desirable result from their models.
55.
by dannersy 6mo ago
> The usage of LLMs is continuing to increase ~exponentially I would like a source for that statement. Additionally, I want to know by who? Because it certainly isn't end users. Inflating token usage doesn't make it any more ec
56.
by dannersy 6mo ago
If they were they would show evidence because they'd pull in more investment. I don't believe their claim that they make profits on inference, especially not with reports like this coming out.
57.
by dannersy 6mo ago
Once again, this whole article is predicated on us being at the finish line. You know who will care about how something got written? Very suddenly, it will be the org that has an issue that the AI fails to fix or you don't understand w
58.
by dannersy 6mo ago
You do not write Rust yet will make blanket absurd claims about Rust being overcomplicated or not solving your problems. The additional comparison of Rust to PHP is also ridiculous for so many reasons it might not be worth even discussing,
59.
by dannersy 6mo ago
Is this another AI article? What is said about Rust here has been said over and over again, and this brings nothing new to the table. They also always seem to be writing from a place of ignorance. If you're writing "high level Rus
60.
by dannersy 6mo ago
This is great news and thank you for work.

More ›