habinero

26 ms·

601.
by habinero 2y ago
What drudgery, though? Secretaries don't do a lot of drudgery. And a good one will see tasks that need doing that you didn't specify. If you're generating immense amounts of really basic make work, that seems like you'
602.
by habinero 2y ago
Yes, there absolutely could be. I'm not saying "it's probably malpractice" just to say it, I'm saying it because the ABA has put out guidelines saying that, and so have most state bars. If you're putting client
603.
by habinero 2y ago
The same reason why there's not hundreds of papers about the benefits of Dyson spheres: without any ability to execute, it's just speculative science fiction. And yes, that link is exactly the behavior I'm talking about. It m
604.
by habinero 2y ago
Oof. That's quite possibly malpractice, and she could potentially lose her license if her clients twig to it. [0] Lawyers have a duty of care and of candor and of confidentiality, and a ChatGPT-ish model like that can violate all three
605.
by habinero 2y ago
There have been several startups that tried it, and they all immediately ran into hot water and failed. The core problem is lawyers already automate plenty of their work, and lawyers get involved when the normal rules have failed. You don&#
606.
by habinero 2y ago
This paper is silly. It asks the equivalent of "what if magic were true" (human-level AI) and answers with "the magic economy would be different." No kidding. FWIW, the author is listed as a fellow of "The Forethoug
607.
by habinero 2y ago
Hahaha. If you think software engineering is primarily about bashing out slop code as fast as possible, then there's not much I can say to you.
608.
by habinero 2y ago
If you're (1) doing something basic and (2) don't care about correctness or quality or reliability and (3) don't need to change or maintain it, then by all means, use it. It's literally no different than copying off Stac
609.
by habinero 2y ago
You're entirely free to go on and on about how amazing the emperor's clothes are. Nobody can stop you. :) It's fine to chase hype for hobbyist or starter projects, but part of being an engineer is understanding how things act
610.
by habinero 2y ago
This is just flat out not true. They're not intelligent and not capable of becoming so. They aren't reliable, by design. They're a wildly overhyped solution in search of a problem.
611.
by habinero 2y ago
> But how are animals with nerve-centres or brains different? What do we think us humans do differently so we are not just very big probabilistic prediction systems? I see this statement thrown around a lot and I don't understand wh
612.
by habinero 2y ago
And, as I stated, your own sources say it's a mild improvement at best. Despite what you're insinuating. Listen: it's a fun toy. Engineers love toys and shiny distractions. Don't confuse shiny rocks for gold.
613.
by habinero 2y ago
Almost nobody considers "deplatforming" to be a serious concern. The kinds of people who are concerned are almost always people who engaging in risky or criminal behavior. In the existing system, people can claw back money if th
614.
by habinero 2y ago
> People can only act as themselves, they can't log into the database and corrupt all the data in a table, so there is no need to recover from massive systemic corruption I don't understand why you think this is so critical? Th
615.
by habinero 2y ago
These kinds of responses are my favorite dark pattern rhetorical device, because you can assert literally _anything_ in this format and almost nobody will refute you, because the cost of refuting bullshit is 100x the cost of producing it. A
616.
by habinero 2y ago
I use Copilot for autocompleting the boring boilerplate. I like it. I also think LLMs are mostly useless. It's not the technology, it's the stupid overhype. It really feels like all the HODL bitcoin cultists have finally gotten ov
617.
by habinero 2y ago
I think LLMs are vastly overhyped and mostly useless, but I use Copilot as glorified autocomplete and like it. It does what the other poster said: it automates the boring parts of "this db model has eight fields that are mostly what yo
618.
by habinero 2y ago
I've had some luck googling "awesome" "<topic>" "github" -- people make lists of projects and links and papers and such and I've found some gems on there when I'm looking for dataviz or csv
619.
by habinero 2y ago
Ok, I'll bite. I read this and my first reactions are: 1. How? 2. Reward them with what? 3. Fans are already promoters. 4. Why is this a good thing? 5. This is just describing fandom, which already exists?
620.
by habinero 2y ago
I do remember those days, and the idea that people thought the internet was a fad is wildly overblown. The reason was: (1) it wasn't new, wide access to it was new and (2) there was clear value to it that could be explained to others
621.
by habinero 2y ago
How about "Yes, they laughed at Galileo, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown?" We heard alllllll the same hype about how revolutionary the blockchain was going to be and look how that turned out. It's a virtue to point
622.
by habinero 2y ago
Because that's the right approach for that situation. A core skill in engineering is understanding tradeoffs, and in that case you want speed. Outside of eng, nobody cares if your company has the prettiest, leanest infrastructure in th
623.
by habinero 2y ago
I would consider all of that fancy autocomplete. If it's just helping you type boring boilerplate things you would have typed anyway, that's autocomplete. It's neat, but it's not the paradigm shift people seem to think i
624.
by habinero 2y ago
No, their work is valuable and they deserve to make money off of it. The reason why it's valuable is it's transcribed live (usually with video) and is accurate and verifiable. Words and names are spelled correctly and speakers a
625.
by habinero 2y ago
> Wait, what's wrong with this view? Wasn't exactly refuted in any way, despite proclamations by the more "embodied cognition" folks, whose beliefs are to me just a religion trying to retroactively fit to modern scien
626.
by habinero 2y ago
Ok? I too have been coding for over a decade and use Copilot as fancy autocomplete. I like it. It's not amazing.
627.
by habinero 2y ago
Right, DARVO.
628.
by habinero 2y ago
We...do know how they work?
629.
by habinero 2y ago
There's no evidence to support that's the case.
630.
by habinero 2y ago
Nah, you don't need to know the details to evaluate something. You need the output and the null hypothesis. If a trading firm claims they have a wildly successful new strategy, for example, then first I want to see evidence they'r

More ›