stymaar

9 ms·

211.
by stymaar 2mo ago
This is obviously AI, but believing in Pangram's output is putting too much trust in a fully broken system.
212.
by stymaar 2mo ago
If you check the submission history of OP, you'll see that they are deep into AI psychosis.
213.
by stymaar 2mo ago
> No they wouldn't have. Low cost isn't no cost, R$D is expensive I'm not talking about R&D. > there are a class of tokenmaxxing users well outside the median (e.g Agentic Coding). It wasn't a thing before last
214.
by stymaar 2mo ago
> Why are Anthropic's and OpenAI's annualized revenue about $50B each? I too can have $50B revenues by selling dollars for 50 cents each, and in the process I'll make a smaller loss than they do.
215.
by stymaar 2mo ago
OpenAI's hypergrowth year was 2023, they have steadily been losing market share over the past year while taking record losses.
216.
by stymaar 2mo ago
I don't know where you get that from, but it's pretty easy to prove it wrong: with their daily active users count, OpenAI and Anthropic would have been profitable for years if that was true. Instead they are bleeding cash like no
217.
by stymaar 2mo ago
> This stuff is just obvious to anyone working with the latest models. Fully autonomous agents are a game changer. This kind of takes makes me cringe. Why don't you go back to LinkedIn? I have no idea what you mean by “pair program
218.
by stymaar 2mo ago
> just a very last-gen way of using agents. Fable has only been out for a month but somehow everyone is supposed to have moved to a completely different way of working that supposedly only works for Fable and nothing else…
219.
by stymaar 2mo ago
> but it’s nothing like Fable. It’s still strongly human-in-the-loop which is fine, It's funny to see that Anthopic shills have been saying the exact same thing for the past two years now (and it was OpenAI fans before). It's a
220.
by stymaar 2mo ago
Yes, that requires some amount of intelligence , that's exactly my point.
221.
by stymaar 2mo ago
Not making mistakes my four years old would not. They are definitely smart enough to be useful, but dumb enough in their weak spots not to deserve the " general intelligence" qualifier.
222.
by stymaar 2mo ago
I think it's Karpathy who coined the term “jagged intelligence”. LLMs are both extraordinary smart in domain they have been explicitly trained on (like Math) and positively dumb on things they haven't.
223.
by stymaar 2mo ago
Asking questions to clarify user intent is a very low bar for intelligence. A bar that all SOTA models fail consistently at though. (It's both funny and legit infuriating when Opus, after having made a dozen wild assumptions without ch
224.
by stymaar 2mo ago
And after half an hour using it he'd just admit that his test was way too simple as these models are still way too dumb
225.
by stymaar 2mo ago
Ads work when you can server $.01 worth of ads to a user for $.0001 of server cost. I fail to see how you can make it work when doing LLM inference which is significantly costlier than web search.
226.
by stymaar 2mo ago
> and is well-written Nah, it's almost pure slop with just the em-dashes edited away.
227.
by stymaar 2mo ago
The text ought to have been interesting, as the insight is real, but for god sake how can someone decently read the slop their LLM outputted as reply to their prompt “write a blog post about X” and just copy-paste as it is?!
228.
by stymaar 2mo ago
> The vast majority of it could be inscrutable, ugly, chaotic and seemingly meaningless. It is, provably: per Curry–Howard correspondence, any program you write is a proof of a theorem, and it is indeed mathematically meaningless.
229.
by stymaar 2mo ago
True. Though ~99% is still useless in the end.
230.
by stymaar 2mo ago
I don't know, but being stationary in deep water isn't trivial task. You can't just drop an anchor when you have 3000-4000m of depth below your feet.
231.
by stymaar 2mo ago
Also, the most powerful country of the world, with the most advanced medical science, faling to manage a deadly measles outbreak because a conspiracy theoricist and antivax has been chosen as Secretary of Health wouldn't have been read
232.
Thanks FedEx, This Is Why We Keep Getting Phished (2024)(troyhunt.com)
338 points by stymaar 2mo ago|82 comments
233.
by stymaar 2mo ago
So it's not just FedEx[1] who does that, but also one of the most important tech company… [1]: https://www.troyhunt.com/thanks-fedex-this-is-why-we-keep-ge...
234.
by stymaar 2mo ago
> What is more important is: is it working? And if not, why not? It's always “working” , the question is for whom.
235.
by stymaar 2mo ago
Thanks for the explanation (though I have to admit I liked your old blog theme more). Since it's just a matter of how async get desugared, can it be changed through an edition?
236.
by stymaar 2mo ago
This whole thread summarizes what's wrong with Pin : it's so confusing everyone in here got something wrong. (Just to address your mistake in particular Unpin is almost the opposite of !Move : it's the trait that represen
237.
by stymaar 2mo ago
Check your map: with the exception a part of South China Sea that is a point of contention with Vietnam, China only has access to shallow water (For instance East China Sea is ~300m deep, which isn't significantly deeper than Norvay&#x
238.
by stymaar 2mo ago
> mem::forget isn’t the only way you can safely leak a value, you can do it with reference cycles too, right? And there is no way for the compiler to detect that? But there's an easy solution for that: you make the reference-counted
239.
by stymaar 2mo ago
Great new! Since 2016 or so it became apparent that immovable types were a crucial missing part of Rust, but for a long time it was believed it wouldn't be possible to add them without breaking everything, which is why we ended up with
240.
by stymaar 2mo ago
Points 2 and 3 kind of contradict themselves though, as China doesn't have access to deep sea (at least until the invasion of Taiwan or if China manage to take control of their claimed share of South China Sea).

More ›