tossandthrow

4 ms·

31.
by tossandthrow 2mo ago
Oh, I did notice t introduce the typo. The commenter corrected after quoted.
32.
by tossandthrow 2mo ago
Yes, is you see my response to one of the parents, it should be apparent that it was clear to me.
33.
by tossandthrow 2mo ago
What appears unreasonable is that the reasons must be good. This comes directly after they wrote "statements we can't verify". Why is it that we can not verify the statements, but we can believe the reasons that people will n
34.
by tossandthrow 2mo ago
No, but the parent is a half baked snark of the type that instills a type of false memes. Latently they say that it is a quality of itself to do the work. That is a reasonable statement, however, I am sure they also extend it to harvesting,
35.
by tossandthrow 2mo ago
I think there might be a mixup here. You see: normally one reads for recreation or enlightenment. If that same one would approach their job as a recreational activity, or solely for enlightenment, you might not have that job for very long.
36.
by tossandthrow 2mo ago
> where afraid to touch for good reasons This appears entirely unreasonable. Normally the reason is not good. The reason is that unit testing is missing or that downstream effects are not entirely mapped out. Exactly activities that trad
37.
by tossandthrow 2mo ago
I think any idea that is contingent on a human being in the loop, solely to the property of being a human is most practically doomed to fail, but is inherently anti scientific. Science,at its core, does not care about the credentials or ins
38.
by tossandthrow 2mo ago
I don't get the argument. I get that there is a cultural benefit to keeping it alive. Just like we ideally want the languages represented at the universities. But keeping humans in the loop does not appear to be necessary in order to c
39.
by tossandthrow 2mo ago
The idea about the goal of mathematics being shared understanding seems to come at a convenient time. Mathematicians have never been known to communicate their ideas very clearly. Regardless, even that target llms will likely win - an llm w
40.
by tossandthrow 2mo ago
Yes, so there is not reason to believe that you can do computations that the precompiler can not do. There is no reason to believe that that you can not fully simulate intelligence in a C++ precompiler. The precompiler can be simulated by h
41.
by tossandthrow 2mo ago
> That sentiment makes me cringe. If you understand how LLMs work, you'd know > But not in the "I'd love to learn more" kind I hope you are able to see the problem in your own communication here. Computation classe
42.
by tossandthrow 2mo ago
Maybe you can enlighten us. In what way aren't LLMs able to make new contributions. LLMs in agentic harnesses are Turing complete. To my best knowledge, we don't know of any greater computational model that the brain is a part of,
43.
by tossandthrow 2mo ago
I am not sure what you are referring to? A photo with adjusted cropping, background blurring, and contrast etc?
44.
by tossandthrow 2mo ago
The issue is discoverability. Photoshop has that one magical button that solves all of your issues. But it is hidden behind specialized knowledge and a 10 step deep menu. Agentic solutions just don't have these issues. You give them yo
45.
by tossandthrow 2mo ago
My non technical wife asked ai to brush up the photo for her cv. Ai did that with whatever cli tools were available and what it would write itself. Ai is not a faster horse. It is a phase shift. We won't see a gas station clerk write p
46.
by tossandthrow 2mo ago
We are used the interfaces being web interfaces. But say that the underlying api exposes some endpoint discoverability capabilities (eg. Exposing an openAPI spec), then arguably the action was invited: the actions was documented along with
47.
by tossandthrow 2mo ago
We are too early to deem it failed ai strategies. I am advising small startups. One of them went entirely to agentic developed software by a team of non technical founders. They had their sec audit done with considerably fewer errors than h
48.
by tossandthrow 2mo ago
We so don't know what plan she is using. Eg.a 20usd/m plan usually don't cut it for professional work.
49.
by tossandthrow 2mo ago
> AI writing makes me vomit. There is likely a non empty set of writings that are AI written and that you don't recognize to be AI written. I agree that the Ai-isms are ugly. Butni also acknowledge that I am likely reading huge amou
50.
by tossandthrow 2mo ago
What can be concluded is that some get immense value out of Ai and some are incredibly critical of that claim. I do not know what the secret sauce is. But I have a responsibility to the team I lead. I need to protect our velocity. Which mea
51.
by tossandthrow 2mo ago
Fair enough, that's on you. You are talking from an ideal point of view. You want the companies to hold employees responsible. But that is is not how it work. Why you appear obtuse. Eg. Look at th3 therac25 case. No developers was held
52.
by tossandthrow 2mo ago
> You're being reductive or just obtuse. > or, at least, they should Seems like you are the obtuse one here, and you appear to know it.
53.
by tossandthrow 2mo ago
It really is not. There are some areas that are critical and where software developers carefully will detail stear the work. But the vast amount of software written, react components and rest endpoints, are very ripe to be entirely written
54.
by tossandthrow 2mo ago
> The human who had their eyes and hands on the code has accountability. They are not. You can not go go back to a laid off person / one who quit and keep them accountable. So this is absolutely not the case. Devs are not accountabl
55.
by tossandthrow 2mo ago
This is just stupid. Younperfeftky know that basically all software Deva use chatgpt or the like constantly to answer questions. In that second some of the progress was already attributed to llms. Both openAI, anthropic and all others guara
56.
by tossandthrow 2mo ago
> Until very recently the norm has been that the vast majority of code had human eyes and hands on it. What quality does it have that humans had eyes on code? Elite teams likely still produce code of better quality with a higher qa bar t
57.
by tossandthrow 2mo ago
You literally spend 99.999% og your time blindly trusting code - and that is only because I assume ymthat you write code yourself. For 99.999% of people, it is literally kthxbye on all code they execute on all their devices.
58.
by tossandthrow 2mo ago
Likely more than we realize.
59.
by tossandthrow 2mo ago
Charge backs are generally not for returns. If the charge was legal and within contract and customer regulations, then Hover might very well just challange the charge back.
60.
by tossandthrow 2mo ago
I don't think that is true. I think more of the capabilities comes from the cross domains knowledge. Anyways, software is also designed for a domain. The reason why it is so adept at making a fitness tracker is likely because it knows

More ›