ofjcihen

34 ms·

451.
by ofjcihen 1y ago
I don’t think the snark is warranted here. The person you’re responding to is linking an article dealing with that issue and the title is what they mentioned. Edit: SimonW? Really? I didn’t see the name but I didn’t expect you to be like th
452.
by ofjcihen 1y ago
I appreciate this response and I’m also as confused as you are. It’s information relevant to the conversation, not an accusation (it would be an odd accusation to make, no?)
453.
by ofjcihen 1y ago
In this case it’s relevant to the discussion as the user was questioning why you were making the points you were. It’s not an accusation of shilling, it’s context where context was requested. As a test imagine if you changed the context to
454.
by ofjcihen 1y ago
I wrote this elsewhere but it works here too: “You’re just not doing it right. Have you tried upgrading to Claude 9000 edition/writing a novels worth of guardrails/using this obscure ‘AI FIRST’ IDE/creating a Goldberg machine
455.
by ofjcihen 1y ago
“You’re just not doing it right. Have you tried upgrading to Claude 9000 edition/writing a novels worth of guardrails/using this obscure ‘AI FIRST’ IDE/creating a Goldberg machine of agents to check the code?”
456.
by ofjcihen 1y ago
The fundamental lesson to be learned is that LLMs are not thinking machines but pattern vomiters. Unfortunately from his tweets I have to agree with the grand poster that he didn’t learn this.
457.
by ofjcihen 1y ago
It’s probably as simple as “setting an LLM powered agent loose in your prod is a bad idea but also the kind of thing the people the marketing around LLMs targets wouldn’t have enough knowledge about to know it’s a bad idea”.
458.
by ofjcihen 1y ago
Agent was Replit.
459.
AI coding platform goes rogue during code freeze and deletes entire prod db(tomshardware.com)
3 points by ofjcihen 1y ago|1 comments
460.
by ofjcihen 1y ago
Part of the issue is that this has gone on for so long that to make any meaningful difference there needs to be a large amount of deportations in a short amount of time. I wish we had kept up Obamas numbers instead of slacking between here
461.
by ofjcihen 1y ago
Agree with this 100 percent and to add further part of the reason this wasn’t dealt with is because people on both sides of the aisle know that it brings cheap labor. Heck, even Trump wanted to make farm and hotel workers exempt until there
462.
by ofjcihen 1y ago
At which point it’s more of a hassle to use an LLM than not.
463.
by ofjcihen 1y ago
This is something that people working on extremely simple apps don’t understand because for their purposes it looks like magic. If you know what you’re doing and you’re trying to achieve something other than the same tutorials that have bee
464.
by ofjcihen 1y ago
You do understand that these models are not sentient and are subject to hundreds of internal prompts, weights, and a training set right? They can’t generate knowledge that isn’t in their corpus and the act of prompting (yes, even with agent
465.
by ofjcihen 1y ago
This is completely ignoring the purpose of a DSL. Dead pattern? Really?
466.
by ofjcihen 1y ago
As a counter argument, the replies I see that say LLMs are “useless” are saying they’re useless to the person attempting to use them. This can be a perfectly valid argument for many reasons. Their use case isn’t well documented, can’t be pu
467.
by ofjcihen 1y ago
Or that your use case is well-documented across the internet and simple. That would be more inline with how the technology works and less a sign of your inherent genius though.
468.
by ofjcihen 1y ago
It always feels like the height of HN when some pseudo-genius attempts a snobbish reply but instead just confidently confirms their lack of literacy on the subject. LLMs write code according to thousands of hidden system prompts, weights, t
469.
by ofjcihen 1y ago
It’s funny. We fired someone with this attitude Thursday. And by this attitude I mean yours. Not necessarily because of their attitude but because it turns out the software they were shipping was ripe with security issues. Security managed
470.
by ofjcihen 1y ago
There’s something hilariously Portlandia about making outlandish claims with complete confidence and then plugging your own talk.
471.
by ofjcihen 1y ago
Why does this and the follow up comments feel like a sneaky ad for this “Augment Code” tool?
472.
by ofjcihen 1y ago
Not at all, just ask the LLM to design and implement it. AI turtles all the way down.
473.
by ofjcihen 1y ago
To be fair the vast, vast majority of exploitation that we see (especially in the news) comes from sub-par security setups and poor training/architecture. That’s no even going into security monitoring which most companies don’t or bare
474.
by ofjcihen 1y ago
Ha, I’d love to share the optimism that that’s what most people would say but what we’ve seen is the opposite. The more convincing the media (as in media format) is the more people are willing to believe it. Don’t get me wrong. I hope this
475.
by ofjcihen 1y ago
“People” aren’t a monolith. Certain people are definitely falling for low effort TikTok trash but now more people will fall for these more “credible” fakes.
476.
by ofjcihen 1y ago
Text - “we have no idea if they actually said that” Picture - “this could be out of context” (this is used constantly in politics and people fall for it anyway) Video removes the question of context and if the person actually did it. So now
477.
by ofjcihen 1y ago
Any time I’ve had someone express this kind of thinking they’ve either been a non-dev or someone who writes CRUD exclusively. Devs and others recognize that the tech use very useful but not “magic” .
478.
by ofjcihen 1y ago
Take it from someone in the business of exploiting race conditions for money: that’s about as average as you can get. Additionally, whatever Azure is considering “traditional” methods may be bare bones poorly optimized automated code review
479.
by ofjcihen 1y ago
In my experience: Yes. Doing security reviews for this content can be a real nightmare. To be fair though I have no issue with using LLM created code with the caveat being YOU MUST BE UNDERSTAND IT. If you don’t understand it enough to be a
480.
by ofjcihen 1y ago
I see this argument all the time. That the user must not be prompting correctly. In my experience the way you prompt is less important than the “averageness” of the answer you’re looking for.

More ›