lnenad

14 ms·

241.
by lnenad 2y ago
I think you are missing the point. I never said it's the same nor is that what I am arguing. > Anyone who finds them 'mindblowing' clearly does not have a complex enough use case. What is the point of llms? If their only p
242.
by lnenad 2y ago
The companies are not doing it. This is what I am saying.
243.
by lnenad 2y ago
No offense taken > In either case your example is showing what? That lying is normal in the business world and should be done by the CEOs as part of their job description? That they should or should not go to jail for it? I am really mis
244.
by lnenad 2y ago
Sure, a vacuum cleaner is the same. > If we're talking about LLMs, I still haven't been able to have a real conversation with 1. There's too much of a lag to feel like a conversation and often doesn't reply with anyth
245.
by lnenad 2y ago
I mean you really don't know multiple CEOs in jail that hyped their stock to the moon? Theranos? Nikola? That's reallyyyy trying hard to minimise the capability of LLMs and their potentials that we're still discovering. But y
246.
by lnenad 2y ago
I said the company is not saying this and not using it for marketing - and this stays true. CEOs hyping their stock is par for the course.
247.
by lnenad 2y ago
How many examples of CEOs writing shit like that can you name? I can name more than one. Elon's been saying that camera driven level 5 autonomous driving will be ready in 2021. Did you believe him?
248.
by lnenad 2y ago
You originally said > They push the narrative that they’ve created something akin to human cognition I am saying they're not doing that, they're doing sales and marketing and it's you that interprets this as possible/
249.
by lnenad 2y ago
> they intentionally use suggestive language that leads people to think AI is approaching human cognition. This helps with hype, investment, and PR. As do all companies in the world. If you want to buy a hammer, the company will sell it
250.
by lnenad 2y ago
> They push the narrative that they’ve created something akin to human cognition This is your interpretation of what these companies are saying. I'd love to see if some company specifically anything like that? Out of the last 100 ye
251.
by lnenad 2y ago
But when you need other people to work with your wheel it's much harder to find those capable enough/that want to deal with that. Also when shit hits the fan and the wheel reinventor left the company you're gonna wish you had
252.
by lnenad 2y ago
> primed by Apple Watch pricing This is a weird take. An avg price for a normal watch is $100-$200. This is a watch with a lot more functionalities that a quartz movement, and the production run is much smaller. I think the price is very
253.
by lnenad 2y ago
I think in this particular scenario it's shortsightedness. They see this an instant increase in revenue without considering that longer term this will destroy their ever dwindling market share.
254.
by lnenad 2y ago
I mean that's a really fake problem. How many times per line of code do you actually need to name variables and how many of those times you're shadowing a previously defined var. I'm guessing a very small amount.
255.
by lnenad 2y ago
> There are lots of good explanations in this subthread for why shadowing as a concept is great Not really. All of them boil down to ergonomics, when in reality it doesn't bring a lot of benefit other than people hating on more desc
256.
by lnenad 2y ago
Depending on which language you are using shadowing could lead to either small issues or catastrophic ones (in the scope of the program). If you have Python and you start with a number but end up with a complex dict this is very different t
257.
by lnenad 2y ago
> When I have `initial_foo`, `foo_feature_a`, and `foo_feature_b`, I have to read the entire code carefully to be sure that I'm using the right `foo` variant in subsequent code. If I later need to drop Feature B, I have to modify su
258.
by lnenad 2y ago
Yeah, it's a feature of a language, doesn't mean we are forced to use it.
259.
by lnenad 2y ago
When did shadowing become a feature? I was under the impression it's an anti-pattern. As per the example in the article > const foo = Foo.init(); > const foo2 = try foo.addFeatureA(); > const foo3 = try foo.addFeatureB(); It&#
260.
by lnenad 2y ago
I don't know when do you think I wrote that "the how" was needed because of course it's not needed. Again, OP wrote about just having "the why" in the message which is bad imho and you need "the what"
261.
by lnenad 2y ago
I mean you're not op but his comment was saying > Interesting idea. But those say what’s in the commit. The commit diff already tells you that. The best commit messages IMO tell you why you did it and what value was delivered. Which
262.
by lnenad 2y ago
I disagree. When you look at the git history in x months you're gonna have a hard time understanding what was done following your example.
263.
by lnenad 2y ago
It's sad how jaded hn can sometimes be. I love the idea and I think there are so many ways it could be useful.
264.
by lnenad 2y ago
Brother I don't disagree with you nor claim anything that I cannot claim since I don't know the domain. You wrote one thing that was incorrect (that they don't exist) and I shared a link that might inform you otherwise. Cheer
265.
by lnenad 2y ago
Hmm, pretty sure you are moving goalposts. You said it doesn't exist even in theory, when in fact it is there in flesh and blood. As any structure that exists on the face of the earth, it can be destroyed. Would it be quicker than hitt
266.
by lnenad 2y ago
What are you talking about? It is already built https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akademik_Lomonosov
267.
by lnenad 2y ago
Or you're the USA
268.
by lnenad 2y ago
Wait really?? Wow, that's awesome to hear. I'll increase the count.
269.
by lnenad 2y ago
Haha, I didn't get any response previously and will be getting laid off soon so extra free time...
270.
by lnenad 2y ago
That is my plan, to do a honeycomb structure. :)

More ›