jama211

9 ms·

151.
by jama211 8mo ago
Writing to express yourself sure. Using an llm for a birthday card would be a terrible sin. However if someone used it for, I dunno, drafting an email because you’re in a dispute with an evil real estate agent and you’re trying not to get s
152.
by jama211 8mo ago
Generating art is worse than generating code though IMO. It’s more personal. Everything exists on a spectrum, even slop.
153.
by jama211 8mo ago
Code _can_ be expressive but it also can not, it depends on its purpose. Some code I cobbled together to pass a badly written assignment at school. Other code I curated to be beautiful for my own benefit or someone else’s. I think the bette
154.
by jama211 8mo ago
As opposed to literally anything else? Not doing that? You ok?
155.
by jama211 8mo ago
Oh look another article of “this works for me therefore it must work for everyone else”
156.
by jama211 8mo ago
Fascinating reading about that bug, thanks for sharing
157.
by jama211 8mo ago
Sure! I don’t personally think it’s necessary, but whatever makes you happy yo.
158.
by jama211 8mo ago
> seems pretty naive I had cereal for breakfast this morning > is splitting hairs I’m a chocolate ice cream guy myself, over strawberry that is. — Sorry, just wanted to join the “quote random parts of a comment and then state complete
159.
by jama211 8mo ago
Not even sure what you’re trying to say here mate. Sure, some people aren’t gonna do their work. That’s not really relevant here
160.
by jama211 8mo ago
I’ve rarely seen this happen personally but it does happen from time to time. Even thorough code reviews don’t take anywhere near as long as the writing though.
161.
by jama211 8mo ago
I err, don’t think you’re saying what you think you’re saying.
162.
by jama211 8mo ago
A fantastic read, even if it makes a lot of silly assumptions - this is ok because it’s self aware of it. Who knows what the future will bring. If we can’t make the hardware we won’t make much progress, and who knows what’s going to happen
163.
by jama211 8mo ago
Thursdays, unfortunately
164.
by jama211 8mo ago
Brilliant, thank you
165.
by jama211 8mo ago
Oh wow I see, great effort either way, thanks
166.
by jama211 8mo ago
Well, at least one of those statements is probably true.
167.
by jama211 8mo ago
Well said. It also causes a lot of bitterness among engineers too, not being able to follow the red string is maddening to some. This rage can prevent them from finding good prompting strategies also which would directly ease a lot of the p
168.
by jama211 8mo ago
No, you don’t. This is a fundamental principle of cryptography, unless you’ve got a hidden proof of p=np up your sleeve.
169.
by jama211 8mo ago
Well said, you’re absolutely right. In practice code review is orders of magnitude faster than code creation and it always has been, baffling anyone is arguing otherwise. Perhaps they’ve never worked in a real organisation, or they’ve only
170.
by jama211 8mo ago
Outside of life saving critical software or military spec software, no one needs to review so hard they understand it to the level you’re describing, and they do not. There is a mathematical principle that verification of a proof is easier
171.
by jama211 8mo ago
Well said. Much like the self driving debate we don’t need them to be perfect, just better than us to be useful, and clearly they already are for the most part.
172.
by jama211 8mo ago
Indeed, a good summary.
173.
by jama211 8mo ago
Running it entirely unsupervised with “some refactoring principles” is the exact recipe for such a disaster, which supports my point. That said, this is a very different kind of mistake to make compared to overwriting a file and then insist
174.
by jama211 8mo ago
Ah, so number 2. Thanks for answering!
175.
by jama211 8mo ago
Aww man you were doing so well
176.
by jama211 8mo ago
I dunno about the need for disclosure in this way. In my working life I’ve copied a lot of code from stack overflow, or a forum or something when I’ve been stuck. I’ve understood it (or at least tried to) when implementing it, but I didn’t
177.
by jama211 8mo ago
Genuinely curious, what’s your goal here? Disparage those who use LLMs? Or just express your unhappiness at the amount of ai content on the HN front page? Or just want to throw shade on LLM use in general? This is impressive and cool but I
178.
by jama211 8mo ago
I mean it’s cool and all but it’s like making a painting entirely out of tiny dots with your hands tied behind your back. I’m happy for their achievement and it looks cool but it shouldn’t throw any shade on those of us who just like to use
179.
by jama211 8mo ago
I suspect this is like the invention of the car. Some people just love riding horses, so they’ll keep doing it as a hobby. The rest of us are fine with a car.
180.
by jama211 8mo ago
This article has some serious usage of either bad prompting, or terrible models, or they’re referencing the past with their stories. I have experience AI’s deleting things they shouldn’t but not since like, the gpt4 days. But that put aside

More ›