prmph

8 ms·

121.
by prmph 4mo ago
Welcome to the ambiguities of natural language
122.
by prmph 4mo ago
> Postgres ... is the right choice when you need higher availability, broader shared scalability, or other deployment properties that are better served by a network database. It is also the better fit when asynchronous replication to obj
123.
by prmph 4mo ago
"All of human cooking" how? Does it have African ingredients?? Clickbait
124.
by prmph 4mo ago
But it is good for the individual. You do have a point that in the long run, the health and growth of the overall economy impacts the quality of life of individuals, but the interests of individuals must be balanced against the interests of
125.
by prmph 5mo ago
> you are never the same unless you can start taking snapshots at the plank scale. You are always changing at the chemical level. And yet there is a sense of continuity. Are you saying the if your are killed and replaced by an immortal b
126.
by prmph 5mo ago
You are attributing to me something I never said. I said nothing about the nature of reality. All that I said is: all my knowledge of the reality (whether it exists independently or me or not) comes from my perception. There could be an obj
127.
by prmph 5mo ago
> If the square had consciousness, it’d be none the wiser. This is exactly what don't know, and is interesting to explore. > there is no separate “stuff” that minds are made out of, no privileged plane of existence specific to mi
128.
by prmph 5mo ago
In that case you don't exist, since there is no such thing as "current". Every moment in time is either past or future, assuming time is continuous. The reals are infinitely infinite.
129.
by prmph 5mo ago
> You are using language invented elsewhere while claiming you can't be sure of its reality. Your senses are the only thing on which this statement rests. Your don't know anything like "language", "invented"
130.
by prmph 5mo ago
Consciousness the the fundamental reality; it is the only thing we know for sure. I know for sure what I am perceiving. Forget about if it is a simulation or not: it is still what I am perceiving. There is nothing else I can be sure of. S
131.
by prmph 5mo ago
Hmmmm: > After their stints in jail, the brothers worked their way back into the tech world. In 2023, Muneeb got a job with a Washington, DC, firm that sold software and services to 45 federal clients; Sohaib got a job at the same compan
132.
by prmph 5mo ago
No, no actually capable engineer should be just banging away at code. This is one way to know the level of an engineer. Less capable engineers think in terms of implementing runtime execution and solving runtime errors. More capable enginee
133.
by prmph 5mo ago
Thanks for your response. I did not mean to insult; my mild jab was meant to draw attention to the idea that using LLMs for serious production software is a whole different game than using them for casual software. You said > Your "
134.
by prmph 5mo ago
> Alternatively, LLM will use its tiny context window to build a true spaghetti that even itself cannot fix any more. And this is (probably) what is happening to the Claude Code product itself. The harness itself has regressed and is inc
135.
by prmph 5mo ago
This sounds like someone who have never had to write serious software. > 1. You don't have to be an LLM expert to get good, consistent results with LLMs. You don't get good consistent results with LLMs, expert or not > 2.
136.
by prmph 5mo ago
> It thinks faster It does not actually, and not any faster. Again I've lost count of how many times I've had an in-depth architectural discussion with ChatGPT, with it giving me the final mark of approval ("This is excell
137.
by prmph 5mo ago
It is unfortunate because churning through patients quickly without actually listening to them well leads to worse outcomes
138.
by prmph 5mo ago
> Diagnosis becomes cheaper & easier -> more time to actually talk to patients Unfortunately is this not likely to happen. More like: Diagnosis becomes cheaper & easier -> more patients a doctor is expected to see in the sa
139.
by prmph 5mo ago
What an incredibly bad idea! To hear it was "popular"...
140.
by prmph 5mo ago
Update to my own comment: They have corrected it now. So, shockingly, it was an actual error, that no copy editor or proof-reader noticed?
141.
by prmph 5mo ago
Sure, and I can also make up my own rules as I go along. After all language evolves, right? /s I didn't purged... I don't had any money... See how silly they sound? The whole point of language is to have rules to facilitate u
142.
by prmph 5mo ago
I'm not sure what you mean by "idiomatic", but it is certainly not valid grammar, even though it is more common now. It is a beginner mistake people carry over from other languages. I agree English is not consistent, but the
143.
Rich People Didn't Use to Look Like This(nytimes.com)
10 points by prmph 5mo ago|11 comments
144.
by prmph 5mo ago
Interesting article, but I'm perplexed by the original headline on the New York Times. The double past tense is grammatically incorrect, and yet it is repeated in the first paragraph. I see this grammar a lot now, and it always bothers
145.
by prmph 6mo ago
> they have encyclopedic knowledge at a superficial level, the approximate judgement and maturity of a teenager, and the short-term memory of a parakeet. If I ask for something, I get the statistical average opinion of a bunch of goons,
146.
by prmph 6mo ago
But, how do you know the code is good? If you do spot checks, that is woefully inadequate. I have lost count of the number of times when, poring over code a SOTA LLM has produced, I notice a lot of subtle but major issues (and many glaring
147.
by prmph 6mo ago
Your point is true, but the one I was replying to was focusing on the aesthetic aspect. For them, the sameness of UIs, while functional, make for a drab experience. My point is that I don't find this to be case. Rather, consistent UIs,
148.
by prmph 6mo ago
what in my comment make you think it is pro-llm?
149.
by prmph 6mo ago
the beauty is in the consistency. why do we build with right angles, straight lines, regular curves, etc? Why not random angles, crooked lines, etc for style and "excitement"? Why don't we assemble a furniture set from a rand
150.
by prmph 6mo ago
Why? It seems just fine to me. This is what Anthropic needs to do if they want to survive. I'm always looking out for someone to integrate an actually good harness to a good model. Once that happens, I'm jumping ship if Anthropi

More ›