If having corruption as an euphemism for "illoyality" means we get the same kind of public investment in infrastructure in the west as China does, then I'm all for it. Seems like here we only have the corruption part, except they call it lobbying and rub it in our faces.
Interesting choices, to frame the US-Iran war in the same terms as the Russian invasion of Ukraine, as if Iran was the aggressor, and to frame the invasions ("small-time infantry campaigns") of Iraq and Afghanistan, which led to millions of lives lost, in the same terms as the comparatively minor US intervention in Syria.
Thank you for sharing this AI-written story about an AI getting banned from Twitter. It's genuinely impressive. With how predominant blue check LLM slop has become on Twitter, I did not know it was still possible to get banned for that.
I've said "what the FUCK are you THINKING" more times than I can count when reading Deepseek or GLM chains-of-thought only for them to end at the correct answer. Other times, they have useful ideas there that they leave out of their answers.
The web as I knew it is already dead. It has been dead for years. I don't understand why the blog owner had the AI that wrote the article focus on technology like Flash vs HTML5, those had no bearing on what actually mattered, which were communities.
What killed the web was the rise of social media and social media-like sites like Reddit. No one makes a website for their hobby or game/book/movie they're a fan of, and a forum and/or IRC channel for their site, anymore. They just post about it on Facebook or Twitter, or maybe on a subreddit for it, but the sense of community that used to be part of it is totally gone. You don't really get to know people like you used to on a forum. Niche Discord servers don't have this problem as much, but they suffer greatly in terms of discoverability.
AI has made it even worse, because now you can't even be sure you're talking to a person, but in my opinion the centralization around social media was far more damaging.
My point was not about the safety of the code, it was about the expressiveness, which is also what the comment I replied to was about. If the parameter has an explicit type (instead of no type, as is normal in Ruby, or `void*`, which is the C equivalent), it forces the developer to consider the design of the function, instead taking the path of least resistance because they're inexperienced/incompetent/a large language model/burnt-out to the point where even the thought of opening the file makes them feel the not-anxiety of burnout/<insert reason here>.
I can't, as my employer owns the code, not me, but there are several examples in one of the Ruby codebases I unfortunately maintain where I can see this degeneration happen via the git history. A small 8 line method with just two parameters slowly grows in complexity over time, until one day one of the original parameters supports two different shapes, and later on it's not that easy to understand which shape it should have in the specific conditional branch you're trying to fix, and the last person to touch that code left the company 4 years ago.
The fault, of course, ultimately lies with the people who wrote and approved this nonsense, but types, or at least type hints, help to avoid this issue.
What qualifies as a frontier model? From my personal "taste tests", I wouldn't have placed Sonnet or Kimi above Deepseek Pro or MiMo, or Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite above Deepseek Flash, but they're listed in the benchmark.
It seems unlikely that this is the case, as the author appears to be experienced, but the post reads like the author has never had to maintain a "simple" and "beautiful" function that was mangled into incomprehensibility over the years, and where if a more expressive type signature had been written from the start, it would have restricted the damage caused over time.
Claude write me a post-mortem. Make no mistakes. Add a big image of a hero banner instead of rendering it in HTML for some reason.
I use AI myself (it's essentially non-optional at work right now), and it's not like this is useless information, but god, I'm just so saturated of this writing style.
Programmers aren't documenting for Claude. Claude is documenting for Claude. Programmers are, at best, reading the documentation Claude wrote for itself to ensure there are no glaring mistakes.
That doesn't sound right. Were you using the actual Deepseek provider? The one time I spent 3 dollars on Deepseek in a day, I had 615k output tokens, 96M cache hit input tokens, and 5M cache miss output tokens.