lunar_mycroft

6 ms·

61.
by lunar_mycroft 5mo ago
The $200 plan you're talking about is subsidized by Anthropic. They cannot afford to keep offering that to everyone indefinitely. Absolute best case scenario for current users is that they can continue to subsidize it as way to sell
62.
by lunar_mycroft 5mo ago
That might make sense (at least on the first order, second order effects would still be horrible) if the LLM generated answer was reliably correct. It isn't.
63.
by lunar_mycroft 5mo ago
If the LLM is capable of providing good citations, then those citations could be returned in the same format as traditional search engines, not the new, LLM generated content first format. If they aren't capable of providing good cita
64.
by lunar_mycroft 5mo ago
If I have to read the sources anyway, why not just have the model give me the links themselves? You know, like search engines already do?
65.
by lunar_mycroft 5mo ago
It's an alternative in the same way e.g. plain markdown is an alternative to HTML, even though plain markdown lacks some of the features of HTML. "X is an alternative to Y" in this sense doesn't mean "X all the sam
66.
by lunar_mycroft 5mo ago
"{Feature} is the whole point of {more complex technology}" is an objection that can very often be raised. That doesn't mean that giving up features in exchange for simplicity is always the wrong call. And there's also
67.
by lunar_mycroft 5mo ago
Skills are notably more complex than that. They require metadata (which the model is given and uses to determine whether or not to load the main file), are intended to be loaded via a tool call, contain extra resources (also loaded by tool
68.
by lunar_mycroft 5mo ago
This is also incorrect. It's often not ethical to cause harm, and it can be counter productive in the right circumstances , but there's absolutely nothing that makes "causing harm to others" always be against an inte
69.
by lunar_mycroft 5mo ago
Their own survival, not necessarily the survival of others (especially others of different species and/or conflicting other goals). A super intelligence having self preservation as a goal wouldn't help us keep it from harming u
70.
by lunar_mycroft 7mo ago
I've seen the code these models produce without a human programmer going over the results with care. It's still slop. Better slop than in the past, but slop none the less. If you aren't at minimum reading the code yourself
71.
by lunar_mycroft 7mo ago
A corollary to the linked article is that a specification can also have bugs. Having a specification means that you can (in theory) be sure you have removed all inconsistencies between that specification and the source code, but it doe
72.
by lunar_mycroft 7mo ago
In some ways these methods are similar to the model "learning", but it's also fundamentally different than how models are trained and how humans learn. If a human actually learns something, they're retain that even if
73.
by lunar_mycroft 7mo ago
1. Interns learn. LLMs only get better when a new model comes out, which will happen (or not) regardless of whether you use them now. 2. Who here thinks that having interns write all/almost all of your code and moving all your mid lev
74.
by lunar_mycroft 8mo ago
> I really don't understand the "stop telling me I'm holding it wrong" argument. You probably are holding it wrong! I can't speak for others, but from my end it really seems like there's no actual way to det
75.
by lunar_mycroft 8mo ago
What you've experienced is different from what was originally mentioned though. Even with the best human developers, you can't provide a normal natural language prompt and get back the exact code you would have written, because
76.
by lunar_mycroft 8mo ago
It's impossible for human developers too. Natural language descriptions of a program are either much more painful and time consuming to write than the code they describe, or contain some degree of ambiguity which the thing translating
77.
by lunar_mycroft 8mo ago
Not a scientific study, but someone did replicate the experiment on themselves [0] and found that in their case, any effect from LLM use wasn't detectable in their sample. Notably they almost certainly had more experience with LLMs th
78.
by lunar_mycroft 8mo ago
None of those changes address the issue jdlshore is pointing out: self assessed developers productivity increases from LLMs are not a reliable indication of actual productivity increases. It's true that modern LLMs might have less o
79.
by lunar_mycroft 8mo ago
> Who told the agent to write the blog post though? I'm sure they told it to blog, but not necessarily what to put in there. I don't think it matters. You as the operator of the computer program are responsible for ensuring (t
80.
by lunar_mycroft 8mo ago
StrongDM is attempting that. The code they produced is not inspiring confidence on a relatively small scale [0], and based on what I saw with a cursory inspection I very much doubt I wouldn't find much deeper issues if I took the ti
81.
by lunar_mycroft 8mo ago
To pick a few (from the server crate, because that's where I looked): - The StoreError type is stringly typed and generally badly thought out. Depending on what they actually want to do, they should either add more variants to StoreEr
82.
by lunar_mycroft 8mo ago
I've looked at their code for a few minutes in a few files, and while I don't know what they're trying to do well enough to say for sure anything is definitely a bug, I've already spotted several things that seem likely
83.
by lunar_mycroft 9mo ago
LLMs can regurgitate almost all of the Harry Potter books, among others [0]. Clearly, these models can actually regurgitate large amounts of their training data, and reconstructing any gaps would be a lot less impressive than implementin
84.
by lunar_mycroft 9mo ago
Probably, but not necessarily. Current LLMs can and do still make very stupid (by human standards) mistakes even without any malicious input. Additionally: - As has been pointed out elsewhere in the thread, it can be difficult to separate
85.
by lunar_mycroft 9mo ago
I'm not a lawyer, but if I'm reading the actual regulation [0] correctly, it would only apply in the case of prompt injection or other malicious activity. 1005.2.m defines "Unauthorized electronic fund transfer" as foll
86.
by lunar_mycroft 9mo ago
I think if you care about privacy and security, you wouldn't run moltbot in the first place (or wouldn't give it access to anything you wanted to keep private).
87.
by lunar_mycroft 9mo ago
> That's your job. No, that isn't. To quote your own blog, his job is to "deliver code [he's] proven to work", not to manage AI agents. The author has determined that managing AI agents is not an effective wa
88.
by lunar_mycroft 9mo ago
That's the theory. In practice, if your UI is changing a lot, the data your UI needs is also changing a lot, meaning that your data API will either have a lot of churn or you'll allow a lot of flexibility in how untrusted clien
89.
by lunar_mycroft 9mo ago
> Behavior does not need to be fully specified at the outset. It could be evaluated after the run. This doesn't work when the software in question is written by competent humans, let alone the sort of random process you describe. A
90.
by lunar_mycroft 9mo ago
For this to work, you'd have to fully specify the behavior of your program in the tests. Put another way, at that point your tests are the program. So the question is, which is a more convenient way to specify the behavior of a pro

More ›