habinero

16 ms·

331.
by habinero 10mo ago
That's not what a strawman is lol. Me saying the analogy sucks is just criticism. If you feel judged about using AI, then your choices are (1) don't use it or (2) don't tell people you use it or (3) stop caring what other peo
332.
by habinero 10mo ago
Yeah. I know. The point is there is no Chesterson's Fence when it comes to LLMs . I can't even start from the assumption that this code is here for a reason. And yes, of course people should understand the code. People should do
333.
by habinero 10mo ago
Of course I can't tell the difference. That's not the point. And yes, humans can leave stupid comments too. The difference is I can ping humans on Slack and get clarification. I don't want reasons because I think comments are
334.
by habinero 10mo ago
No, I'm still saying something very practical. I don't care what text the LLM generates. If you wanna read robotext, knock yourself out. It's useless for what I'm talking about, which is "something is broken and I
335.
by habinero 10mo ago
Just say the model uses the files to seed token state. Anthropomorphizing the thing is silly. And no, you don't skip the documentation because you "think you can just remember everything". It's a tradeoff. Documentation
336.
by habinero 10mo ago
> Your job is not to secure customer accounts, but to spend the least amount of money to produce a level of account security that will not affect the bottom line I completely agree with every line of this statement. That is literally the
337.
by habinero 10mo ago
I'm not making a semantic argument, I'm making a practical one. > prompting the AI with words that you'd actually use when asking a human to perform the task, generally works better Ok, but why would you assume that would
338.
by habinero 10mo ago
Documentation isn't there to have and admire, you write it for a purpose. There are like eight bajillion systems out there that can generate low-level javadoc-ish docs. Those are trivial. The other types of internal developer documenta
339.
by habinero 10mo ago
It's...very much a difference? If you're planning on throwing the code away, fine, but if you're not, eventually you're going to have to revisit it. Say I'm chasing down some critical bug or a security issue. I run
340.
by habinero 10mo ago
I've heard this analogy regurgitated multiple times now, and I wish people would not. It's true that many master artists had workshops with apprenticeships. Because they were a trade. By the time you were helping to paint portrait
341.
by habinero 10mo ago
Ehhh, I don't know. "Communication" is for sapients. I'd call that "knowing the right keywords". And if the hype is right, why would you need to know any of them? I've seen people unironically suggest tell
342.
by habinero 10mo ago
No, they just have a different job than I do and they (and you, I suspect) don't understand the difference. Software engineers are not paid to write code, we're paid to solve problems. Writing code is a byproduct. Like, my job is
343.
by habinero 10mo ago
Yeah, there's a big difference between edutainment like Brilliant and Duolingo and actually studying a topic. I'm not trying to be snobbish here, it's completely fine to enjoy those sorts of products (I consume a lot of pop s
344.
by habinero 10mo ago
> I prefer to change my environment to fit how my brain/body works, not influence my body/brain by swallowing side effects riddled pills Just try harder to make insulin, bro. You can outthink that t1 diabetes if you try hard en
345.
by habinero 10mo ago
> You no longer need copywriters because of LLMs You absolutely do still need copyeditors for anything you actually care about.
346.
by habinero 10mo ago
Yes, because different things are different.
347.
by habinero 10mo ago
(Continuing from my other post) The first thing I checked was "how did they verify the proofs were correct" and the answer was they got other AI people to check it, and those people said there were serious problems with the paper&
348.
by habinero 10mo ago
Or -- and hear me out -- that result doesn't mean what you think it does. That's the exact reason I mention the Clever Hans story. You think it's obvious because you can't come up with any other explanation, therefor
349.
by habinero 10mo ago
> If this were hobbyist awe, none of those benchmarks or red-teaming efforts would exist. Absolutely not true. I cannot express how strongly this is not true, haha. The tech is neat, and plenty of real computer scientists work on it. Tha
350.
by habinero 10mo ago
My dude, I assure you "humans are really good at convincing themselves of things that are not true" is a very, very well known fact. I don't know what kind of arbitrage you think exists in this incredibly anodyne statement
351.
by habinero 10mo ago
Mmm. People who make AI their entire personality and brag that other people are too stupid to see what they see and soon they'll have to see the genius they're denying...does not make me think "oh, wow, what have I missed in
352.
by habinero 10mo ago
No, frankly it's the difference between actual engineers and hobbyists/amateurs/non-SWEs. SWEs are trained to discard surface-level observations and be adversarial. You can't just look at the happy path, how does the sys
353.
by habinero 10mo ago
> The answer is obvious. It ALREADY knew the truth. There’s no other logical way to explain this. I can think of several offhand. 1. The effect was never real, you've just convinced yourself it is because you want it to be, ie you C
354.
by habinero 10mo ago
This whole thread is delightful. Well done.
355.
by habinero 10mo ago
Yes, it embarrasses the people who think this kind of thing is a good idea and ideally generates behavioral change.
356.
by habinero 10mo ago
I read through this to see if my AI cynicism needed any adjustment, and basically it replaced a couple basic greps and maaaaybe 10 minutes of futzing around with markdown. There's a lot of faffing about with JSON, but it ultimately doe
357.
by habinero 10mo ago
Not the original poster, but that was snark and not meant literally. Also, building your own plane is absolutely worse, even if you do have expert-level knowledge. That's true for any complex design. Aircraft design, material sourcing,
358.
by habinero 10mo ago
Are you really comparing an amateur skillset to designs from paid engineers made on a company assembly line with QC? Why on earth would you think an experimental aircraft made by a hobbyist would be safer?
359.
by habinero 10mo ago
Same. I like the type hints -- they're nice reminders of what things are supposed to be -- but I've essentially ~never run into bugs caused by types, either. I've been coding professionally in Python for 10+ years at this poi
360.
by habinero 10mo ago
I'm responding to the comment above me, my dude.

More ›