jmcqk6

5 ms·

1.
by jmcqk6 10d ago
Not the OP, but it's because the value has got to ultimately be recognized by humans. You can make llms perform judgement, and maybe that will get you some progress. But ultimately the value is going to come from engaging with other h
2.
by jmcqk6 10d ago
I have no doubt that it can be a deterrent for some. The question is more about whether this is the optimal strategy for addressing the problem.
3.
by jmcqk6 10d ago
It's not well known, but in February of 1983, there was a finch in the Galapagos that was found to be numberwang. And of course there was the famous incident in the 1994 World Series where a homerun was overturned because it turned ou
4.
by jmcqk6 10d ago
There are quite a few people who murder despite the risk of incarceration. I would love a system that approaches it more like: "you've lost trust of this civilization to act in good faith, and now you will be contained in a way t
5.
by jmcqk6 16d ago
This is a risky path. If you internalize it in unhealthy ways, you're empowering your shadow, and it will find inconvenient, self-defeating ways to express it.
6.
by jmcqk6 16d ago
It's likely there is, though it might be difficult to find. One place you can look is the local unitarian universalists. These can vary widely, but often you'll find them open to all religions (including non-religious), and full
7.
by jmcqk6 16d ago
Talking to bots can induce psychosis in some individuals. This isn't a solved problem, nor is there a universal solution. People need connection, but the varieties of connection are vast. What works for one person, can be terrible fo
8.
by jmcqk6 18d ago
Why does "there's lots of evidence that shows this is harmful" get reduced to "You don't like it?" I'm not taking a stance here. I'm just noticing the rhetorical move you made. There is lots of evid
9.
by jmcqk6 26d ago
The thing about this type of thinking is that it often requires risking millions of dollars and a major distraction from your primary goal in order to find out if it's true or not.
10.
by jmcqk6 26d ago
This is an unexpected yet welcome application of the fundamental attribution error: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error
11.
by jmcqk6 2mo ago
There are three things programmers bring: Salience - Agents only know what we bring to their attention Judgment - Agents cannot make decisions in the larger business context Responsibility - Agents do not care if they crash the system
12.
by jmcqk6 2mo ago
Extend it to scan papers from pre-2020. That should give you a better baseline accuracy for your detection system.
13.
by jmcqk6 2mo ago
How did it kill the product? It's still cranking along pretty good.
14.
by jmcqk6 3mo ago
I've been thinking of it as a "conservation of cognition". there is some fundamental about of cognition that needs to be spent in order to keep things moving. LLMs do not reduce that, they only change it.
15.
by jmcqk6 3mo ago
ghostty is a zig project too!
16.
by jmcqk6 3mo ago
You can't keep people from being stupid via the language you use. People who have the reaction you describe would not magically "get it" if different language is used.
17.
by jmcqk6 3mo ago
> Absolutely true, however my experience says that the correlation between "good software engineering practices" and "positive business outcomes" is, at best, small. One of the most uncomfortable truths about our prof
18.
by jmcqk6 3mo ago
I can't speak to benchmarks, but I have used Composer 2.5 extensively and it's performed quite well in my real world tasks.
19.
by jmcqk6 3mo ago
Why does it need to provide guidance about that? It's one step along the way of cultivating wisdom, not the destination.
20.
by jmcqk6 3mo ago
I don't think you've understood the lesson here. Chesterton's fence is not about keeping systems in place. It is about how you approach changing the system.
21.
by jmcqk6 3mo ago
yeah he's not a crank, just an asshole. Taking credit for work did by his employees, to the point of suing them. The only significant discovery to come out of his CA work was completed by an employee, who wolfram sued when he publish
22.
by jmcqk6 4mo ago
I'm using Composer extensively, and it works great for me. Your experiences are not universal.
23.
by jmcqk6 4mo ago
Lots of people in the US getting left behind too.
24.
by jmcqk6 4mo ago
That does not match my experience. Composer 2 was fantastic for my uses, and I hit Composer 2.5 with some very difficult things last night, which it handled fast and effectively. I don't really care about benchmarks. I care about pr
25.
by jmcqk6 4mo ago
I've been using cursor for over a year for my personal projects. At work, I use Claude Code, and so I've been wondering if I'm missing something in the other agents. Over the last week, I tried out two other agents on my per
26.
by jmcqk6 5mo ago
I didn't imply anything. I just called out the emotional reality. There are a lot of externalized pain in the world today, and little recourse to addressing it. You can try telling people that they are naive and need to look at the bi
27.
by jmcqk6 5mo ago
> There will be suffering during transition and there will be many that don’t fare well Yeah, and the people suffering are not going to like that. If people are afraid of being in that group, then they will not be very happy about it. I
28.
by jmcqk6 5mo ago
It sounds like this has a pretty falsifiable claim here - is the revenue attributed to a tax thing? Then it's clearly not attributable to code. I agree that the macro picture would speak for itself. Can you point to any macro level d
29.
by jmcqk6 5mo ago
You're still talking about compute resources that need to be paid for and maintained for that. Spamming AI PR's is going to cost a lot of money.
30.
by jmcqk6 5mo ago
Those things cost resources, and now you're introducing a new attack vector: open up a bunch of shit PRs, burn a lot of cash for the target organization.

More ›