sanderjd

10 ms·

181.
by sanderjd 4mo ago
Yep. Could not be more disappointed in Gorsuch here. What is the point of writing things down in the Constitution if Justices are just going to vote for their preferred ideology and come up with embarrassingly thin justifications for whatev
182.
by sanderjd 4mo ago
Maybe so, but it isn't any of the Supreme Court's business. The 14th amendment is very clear. And yep, if you don't like that amendment, you're free to advocate for a new amendment that says something different.
183.
by sanderjd 4mo ago
This has nothing to do with whether it is a good idea. The question is whether the 14th amendment plainly says that this is the law of the land in the US, which it plainly does. That three Justices chose to attempt to gaslight us about this
184.
by sanderjd 4mo ago
This is not the only "proper approach" and what approach is proper is a hotly contested question. But it doesn't even matter, because in this case it is very clear what the drafters intended.
185.
by sanderjd 4mo ago
Surely "subject to the jurisdiction" must mean subject to any jurisdiction, or it is completely meaningless.
186.
by sanderjd 4mo ago
Yes, the Justices in dissent have an ideological opposition to "citizenship tourism" and are working backward from that to find it to be out of scope of the Constitutional language. But that's wrong, that's not their job
187.
by sanderjd 4mo ago
I don't think the language is ambiguous at all , and I consider it shocking and beneath the dignity of the Court that this was not a unanimous decision (and that the case was taken at all).
188.
by sanderjd 4mo ago
Because they could use (or maybe are already using) similar techniques to do things you don't approve of, without your awareness.
189.
by sanderjd 4mo ago
Are they benefiting from the insane valuations though? If the valuations deflate before the insiders are able to exit, I think that would be worse for them than a lower but sustainable valuation. It all comes down to whose prediction of the
190.
by sanderjd 4mo ago
Maybe. But that sounds like a large amount of bespoke work for what seems like a common problem?
191.
by sanderjd 4mo ago
What I want is a harness that knows how to optimize this kind of thing for me.
192.
by sanderjd 4mo ago
Not for a business model that scales revenue by token usage. But other business models are available.
193.
by sanderjd 4mo ago
My two cents is that the way to square this circle is that the valuations should be lower and they should be spending a lot less on constant retraining. Unfortunately (from my perspective) it seems like the US companies are increasingly stu
194.
by sanderjd 4mo ago
What is "noceboeffect"?
195.
by sanderjd 4mo ago
Yes agreed, but there is limited time in a life, so there is a fairly high opportunity cost to internalizing a model of many things, which scales quickly with the complexity of those things, so people rationally limit the number of things t
196.
by sanderjd 4mo ago
This is a very fair question! When I wrote this comment, I was definitely thinking of the "real" mainstream, i.e. users of llm chat to generate text, not software engineers. But I think there is (and has always been) also a distin
197.
by sanderjd 4mo ago
Yes exactly. There is a narrative that it's driving everything toward low quality slop, but in my own work it's exactly the opposite. We're doing work on quality and performance that we never would have gotten to in the past.
198.
by sanderjd 4mo ago
Maybe. I felt this way a year ago and definitely two years ago. But now my sense is that it's played out at this point, and the valuable thing to build expertise on now - precisely because I think it's coming rather than here
199.
by sanderjd 4mo ago
For me (about halfway between you and dofm in my career by your own statements in this thread), it's a dream at the moment. I can delegate all the tedious stuff that I've done "the hard way" a thousand times already and
200.
by sanderjd 4mo ago
Yeah, this is just the engineer's mindset. It's not surprising that this is a popular view here, even if it is not (and does not need to be) the mainstream perspective.
201.
by sanderjd 4mo ago
To me, this is just a question of specialization. Not everyone needs to be a "I understand how the system actually works" person. In fact, not many people need to be that person. But every system does need some of that person
202.
by sanderjd 4mo ago
Writing software never was never a general skill either though? Or am I misunderstanding your point?
203.
by sanderjd 4mo ago
Where has that been your experience? My experience interacting with people about this is almost entirely in HN threads like this one, and I haven't found what you're saying here to be the case. But if this is the case, as you say,
204.
by sanderjd 4mo ago
Continuing to learn new ones, like what? To me, "how do contemporary AI systems work and interact with contemporary hardware and how can I best take advantage of their capabilities?" is the set of skills that are worth learning
205.
by sanderjd 4mo ago
Yeah, I think the fallacy here is the conflation of scale and centralization. Right now, there is way more scale in centralized AI than there is at the edge. But that could flip. I'd still probably put the probability that it will unde
206.
by sanderjd 4mo ago
... said the IBM executive to a young Bill Gates.
207.
by sanderjd 4mo ago
Seems like an investment into building expertise, which is likely to have high ROI in the future, rather than a wasteful cost.
208.
by sanderjd 4mo ago
> currently The interesting question is whether that gap will narrow, and if so, how much, and on what timescale. The exact answer to this question is not knowable, but if you are the kind of person who comes to a site called "hac
209.
by sanderjd 4mo ago
Yeah seems to me like the mac studios with the unified memory architecture are genuinely good bang for the buck at the moment, because of this memory size consideration?
210.
by sanderjd 4mo ago
You don't want to handle errors in all the leaves of the system the way AIs have a tendency to, because you very rarely have the right context that deep in the stack to actually handle the error in an intelligent way. So what they end

More ›