lolinder

57 ms·

961.
by lolinder 2y ago
> And what is wrong with being a cog? Human cogs are going to be phased out. I'm not an AI doomer who thinks engineers are going to be replaced across the board, but the need for a human being who functions like a robot is going a
962.
by lolinder 2y ago
Right, I agree. The leetcode interviews are a bad fit for almost every company—they only made sense in the Googles and Microsofts that invented them and actually did want to optimize for cogs.
963.
by lolinder 2y ago
The traditional tech interview was always designed to optimize for reliably finding someone who was willing to do what they were told even if it feels like busywork. As a rule someone who has the time and the motivation to brush up on an es
964.
by lolinder 2y ago
> Is that really your take away from reading that issue? Yes. You went to them with a definition of who they're trying to serve and they wrote back that they didn't agree with your relatively narrow scope. Now you're out i
965.
by lolinder 2y ago
A disorder needs to interfere with regular functioning but does not need to make one unhappy. Someone with Narcissistic Personality Disorder doesn't necessarily even recognize that they're causing havoc, much less feel bad about i
966.
by lolinder 2y ago
> between ~2008 and ~2016, incorporating in CA could at least potentially be read as "We're really serious about hiring the best talent and doing an unusually good job, to the point that we're willing to pay a premium.&quo
967.
by lolinder 2y ago
> profit (which Delaware has historically protected), or values (in which case they would incorporate/move to a place that aligns with said values - of which vanishingly few companies do). Which values exactly are being expressed by
968.
by lolinder 2y ago
> I wonder if we'll end up with both a 4o and o4... The perplexing thing is that someone has to have said that, right? It has to have been brought up in some meeting when they were brainstorming names that if you have 4o and o1 wi
969.
by lolinder 2y ago
Why do you care? They're the ones who will deal with the support burden of people who don't understand how to use it—if that support burden is low enough that they're happy with where they're at, what motivation do you h
970.
by lolinder 2y ago
Yes, that's what I meant, sorry if it was confusing: The problem that Llamafiles solve is making it easy to set up one model without infrastructure.
971.
by lolinder 2y ago
> To get things straight: llama.cpp is not hard to setup and get running. It was a bit of a hassle in 2023 but even then it was not catastrophically complicated if you were willing to read the errors you were getting. It's made a lo
972.
by lolinder 2y ago
> No pre-built binaries yet! Use cargo to try it out Not an equivalent yet, sorry.
973.
by lolinder 2y ago
But you never said why, and you never said it was incorrect, you said it was a reasonable argument and then appealed to the popularity of the PR as the reason why you disagree. But now suddenly what I said is not just an argument you disagr
974.
by lolinder 2y ago
Llamafile is great but solves a slightly different problem very well: how do I easily download and run a single model without having any infrastructure in place first? Ollama solves the problem of how I run many models without having to dea
975.
by lolinder 2y ago
Okay, now we're playing semantics. "Reasonable argument" were your words. What changed between then and now to where the same argument is now "incorrect"?
976.
by lolinder 2y ago
This is a change from your response to the comment that I linked to, where you said it was a good point. Why the difference? Maybe I should clarify that I'm not saying that the effort to enable a new backend is substantial, I'm sa
977.
by lolinder 2y ago
As has been pointed out in this thread in a comment that you replied to (so I know you saw it) [0], Ollama goes to a lot of contortions to support multiple llama.cpp backends. Yes, their solution is a bit of a hack, but it means that the ef
978.
by lolinder 2y ago
So many here are trashing on Ollama, saying it's "just" nice porcelain around llama.cpp and it's not doing anything complicated. Okay. Let's stipulate that. So where's the non-sketchy, non-for-profit equivalent
979.
by lolinder 2y ago
The headline is either sloppy or intentionally misleading: the Copyright Office is saying that the law surrounding whether AI generated works can be copyrighted was settled in 1965 (the answer being "yes if AI assisted a human creative
980.
by lolinder 2y ago
> But the core dogma of "believe specific claims of fact because they were written down in one text and not another" is bad epistemology no matter how you cut it. My understanding of Catholicism comes from outside of it, but th
981.
by lolinder 2y ago
> Whether or not a literal god may have been involved at any point is irrelevant. Right now, we're very far removed from any such claimed involvement, looking at documents that have been written, cherry-picked, translated, rewritten
982.
by lolinder 2y ago
OP is giving the correct answer for the Catholic worldview. You and the Catholic Church are operating under completely different axioms, so there's no point in responding to someone's explanation of Catholic axioms by just repeati
983.
by lolinder 2y ago
I'm sure some people did actually get hurt by NVIDIA's stock dropping, but it's also important to keep the size of the effect in perspective: NVIDIA's stock is back to where it was in September of last year, and still up
984.
by lolinder 2y ago
"No one does it" is extremely relative. Take your closing remark about JavaScript: I don't run into JS warts very often at all, and I'm a professional web developer who works in it day in and day out. I guess my team jus
985.
by lolinder 2y ago
Citation? My understanding was that they are provided that someone has to affirmatively accept them in order to use your site. So Terms of Service stuck at the bottom in the footer likely would not count as a contract because there's n
986.
by lolinder 2y ago
Are Lisp macros easy to use? My understanding was that Lisp code is notoriously difficult to understand if you didn't write it, largely because of the obscenely powerful macro system that makes it too easy to be too clever. Which is es
987.
by lolinder 2y ago
It probably ignored hundreds of thousands of "by using this site you consent to our Terms and Conditions" notices, many of which probably would be read as prohibiting training. But that's also a great example of why these imp
988.
by lolinder 2y ago
> How many developer jobs are due to startups? Out of the Who's Hiring thread on Hacker News, which is what this chart in TFA is measuring? I don't know, but I'm assuming a pretty big chunk.
989.
by lolinder 2y ago
Like I said, I'm not saying that this was victim blaming, I'm only protesting against this explanation for why it's not: > It's not really victim blaming if you do it to yourself. "They did it to themselves"
990.
by lolinder 2y ago
You can't separate phones from social media, they have a symbiotic relationship and feed off of each other. Without smartphones, social media would be much less pervasive and much less toxic, because people would not have an internet c

More ›