morningsam

l’altro ieridiscuss

And literally 3 sentences later he goes back to insulting him ("productivity fantasy fever dream"). Even if that is true, it's still an unwise post to publish in this form IMHO. If the goal was to defend Zig, that could've been done in a less personal manner.

morningsam

7 giorni fadiscuss

This is how it's often done, but personally, I'd prefer if the information "With this comment I want to promote something I made" came first, so that people who aren't interested can skip it.

morningsam

mese scorsodiscuss

>but as soon as you approach ~$400/month they ask that you get a Claude/Codex Max subscription instead

While this seems to be allowed because the current ToS don't seem to explicitly forbid it, I'd be surprised if this loophole stayed open for long... Why would they even distinguish between business and (much cheaper) individual plans if companies can work around it by telling employees to just pay for the latter themselves?

morningsam

2 mesi fadiscuss

Someone did an analysis and concluded that it appear to be at least partly (~10-15%) LLM-generated, or at least LLM-translated (see comments): https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/s58hDHX2GkFDbpGKD/linch-s-sh...

morningsam

2 mesi fadiscuss

>some don't really seem to make sense.

This one stood out to me:

>Machine-scale infrastructure. [...] Git itself wasn't designed for that load, and bolting AI onto platforms not built for agents is the biggest mistake of this era. [...] Git itself is being reengineered for machine scale.

Git itself is so far down the list of bottlenecks that do or could hamper LLM-driven development, even projecting years into the future...

morningsam

2 mesi fadiscuss

To be fair, any LLM project gets a lot of stupid tickets, by virtue of a) marketing to users who aren't really developers and b) bad developers being more likely to use LLMs. Both of these groups are more likely to write bogus or non-reproducible bug tickets, as well as feature requests that don't make any sense. My guess is 10% of those 10,000 open issues are actual bugs or sensible requests.

On the other hand, LLMs seem perfect for triage and finding duplicates, so it's still surprising that they've let it get this bad.

morningsam

2 mesi fadiscuss

>the LLM constantly guesses arguments or dictionary formats wrong [...] it's better to avoid that whole class of runtime errors altogether.

Use Mypy in strict mode and run it in the post-turn hook of your LLM harness so the LLM has no choice but to obey it. And don't use overly general dictionary types when the keys are known at development time; use TypedDicts for annotations if you must use dicts at runtime.

morningsam

2 mesi fadiscuss

LLM slop article. But as for the topic: To me, "Kanban with refinements and retrospectives" is the sweet spot. The concept of Sprint seems not only superfluous but to add unnecessary rigidity. But you do want everyone to understand the tickets, so refinements are useful, and you do want to try and improve "meta" issues where possible (and have the amount of effort going into that limited so you don't end up in the methodology equivalent of yak shave hell), so retrospectives are useful, too.

morningsam

3 mesi fadiscuss

This sounds like it only changes the framing, but in reality it would lead to completely different behavior, so the "leave the gun alone" option would likely lead to far fewer deaths than the red button option, simply by virtue of organisms including humans being generally biased in favor of "do nothing" (= leave the gun alone).

You could do both experiments with dogs instead of humans and roughly 100% of dogs wouldn't manage to shoot themselves with the gun, whereas if you forced them to press one of the two buttons (e.g. keeping them in a room until they press one by chance), roughly 50% would press the red one. So the two experiments differ strongly w/r/t to how likely it is for a "non-thinking" organism to choose each option.

morningsam

3 mesi fadiscuss

Made me stop reading a few paragraphs in. I don't have a "problem" in the ethical sense either, but as the sibling comment notes, the way LLMs write is rather grating. To make matters worse, a) people seem to use them to add pointless volume / "filler" to their texts, so now I have to wade through pages and pages of this stuff, and b) I have no easy way to distinguish between an article at least based on novel human insights vs entirely LLM-generated from a "write me something about X topic" prompt. I don't think it's a stretch to say that the latter just isn't worth reading given the state of the art.

morningsam

3 mesi fadiscuss

What's the source of the claim that it was a Roblox cheat? Neither the report linked at the start of this article nor Context.ai's and Vercel's notices mention this.

morningsam

3 mesi fadiscuss

>The technology is pushed forward by a simple psychological logic: every key global actor knows that if they don't build the technology, they will be outcompeted by other actors who do build the technology. No key actor thinks that they have the luxury of not building the technology even if they wanted to not build it.

I don't remember who, but someone made an interesting point about this around the time GPT-4 was released: If the major nuclear powers all understand this, doesn't that make nuclear war more likely the closer any of them get to AGI/ASI? After all, if the other side getting there first guarantees the complete and total defeat of one's own side, a leader may conclude that they don't have anything to lose anymore and launch a nuclear first strike. There are a few arguments for why this would be irrational (e.g. total defeat may, in expectation, be less bad than mutual genocide), but I think it's worth keeping in mind as a possibility.

morningsam

3 mesi fadiscuss

Yudkowsky himself also posted a rebuttal today: https://x.com/ESYudkowsky/article/2043601524815716866

morningsam

5 mesi fadiscuss

Exactly. This whole thing just seems like a repeat of Flappy Bird to me. What was the "lesson" of Flappy Bird for game developers? That you should make very small, very simple games? How has that worked out for the vast majority of copycats who tried? The truth is there isn't any lesson, other than "sometimes people play the lottery, get lucky and win". Most people who play won't, though.

morningsam

5 mesi fadiscuss

And beyond the ethical points it makes (which I agree may or may not be relevant for LLMs - nobody can know for sure at this point), I find some of the details about how brain images are used in the story to have been very prescient of LLMs' uses and limitations.

E.g. it is mentioned that MMAcevedo performs better when told certain lies, predicting the "please help me write this, I have no fingers and can't do it myself" kinda system prompts people sometimes used in the GPT-4 days to squeeze a bit more performance out of the LLM.

The point about MMAcevedo's performance degrading the longer it has been booted up (due to exhaustion), mirroring LLMs getting "stupider" and making more mistakes the closer one gets to their context window limit.

And of course MMAcevedo's "base" model becoming less and less useful as the years go by and the world around it changes while it remains static, exactly analogous to LLMs being much worse at writing code that involves libraries which didn't yet exist when they were trained.

morningsam

7 mesi fadiscuss

Was my first thought as well. I had no idea those little guys were based on something real.

morningsam

8 mesi fadiscuss

Same in Germany, and not just for elementary schools but also secondary schools. At least that's how it was decades ago when I was a student, maybe it's different now.

morningsam

11 mesi fadiscuss

>Typeless loosy goosy code that passes dictionaries all over the place is just not fun.

mypy --strict in CI & don't let dict[str, Any] pass review if the keys are constants, insist on a dataclass or at least a TypedDict.

morningsam

2 anni fadiscuss

There have been other instances in which exit fees, which is what this amounts to, were considered anticompetitive, e.g. [1] (although this was settled so there is no ruling). Google itself has started to waive egress costs for GCP customers leaving the platform last month, which, according to some sources, is simply a direct consequence of new EU legislation (Data Act) [2], but according to others is in anticipation of wider-reaching EU antitrust investigations [3].

[1]: https://www.agriculturedive.com/news/koch-foods-antitrust-ch...

[2]: https://www.computerweekly.com/news/366566360/Googles-data-e...

[3]: https://blog.min.io/googles-new-egress-policy/