HackerTrans
トップ新着トレンドコメント過去質問紹介求人

lnenad

758 カルマ登録 8 年前
Eng Mng with 10+ years of exp; currently working with AI/LLMs

nenadspp gmail.com

grafly.io

logdot.io

投稿

Ask HN: Did Anthropic Just Win?

5 ポイント·投稿者 lnenad·先月·11 コメント

Show HN: Grafly.io – Free online diagramming tool

grafly.io
9 ポイント·投稿者 lnenad·4 か月前·1 コメント

How One Rock Poisoned (Almost) The Entire Planet

youtube.com
5 ポイント·投稿者 lnenad·5 か月前·0 コメント

コメント

lnenad
·一昨日·議論
Considering the DeepSWE result (imho if you're gonna give value to benchmarks this is one of the best) it's not good enough.
lnenad
·3 日前·議論
I get it, you just prefer to do things differently

> Faster iteration means i mentally checkout less and am more involved with the code being created.

This is a good point I didn't consider and you're right. More interaction brings you closer to the code.

I still think that this is the opposite of what I personally want. Either I write the code (or a large majority of it), and be fully involved; or be more disconnected but more free to focus on other things. The middle ground removes me from the equation, but also requires me to babysit.
lnenad
·3 日前·議論
You can ask for a complete feature/app/business. Or you can split up the work into verifiable/testable pieces and rely on a high quality AI to deliver. As time goes by the pieces will get larger as capability grows. I still trust myself and my experience when arch is involved, but AI has been great at tackling lower level stuff. And with Fable I don't really care it takes a while for it to complete, as I know I can trust it a lot more (which is what I personally prefer). Yes, with a 10k tps model you can iterate quickly. But that's not me personally.
lnenad
·3 日前·議論
Again, my point is exactly the opposite. Higher quality implies a mistake isn't made in a significant % of cases.
lnenad
·3 日前·議論
Why? I'm personally on the opposite end. Less babysitting/higher quality means more time goes back to me/the user. 1000tps of bad code means you have to keep validating the output and circling back.
lnenad
·3 日前·議論
For me it's the skill. So many things you have to be good at to build this. Really impressive and slightly jealous.
lnenad
·5 日前·議論
Very nice! Thank you for building this.
lnenad
·5 日前·議論
What wild regurgitation of some generic sentence is this lol?
lnenad
·6 日前·議論
If it's my data/money getting stolen, I'd give no fucks about MSI getting a fine or whatever the usual reaction to these fuckups is. On the other hand, if I found an exploit and there wasn't a bounty available, I'd still report it. Betterment of the world and all that.
lnenad
·6 日前·議論
But it's not "MSI computers" it's actual people getting pwned.
lnenad
·7 日前·議論
Ok? I agree with everything. What does that have to do with reporting exploits that don't have bounties?
lnenad
·7 日前·議論
You're actually helping the people that use the software from getting pwned, companies are secondary beneficiaries.
lnenad
·7 日前·議論
You understand the concept of doing something that doesn't bring direct monetary benefit?
lnenad
·8 日前·議論
Did I ever say any of those things?
lnenad
·8 日前·議論
I'm not justifying anything nor am I arguing against it. I'm saying it's not a thing worth mentioning as it's not related to AI in any way. If one would try to find AI related negatives go for datacentres, chip shortage/price hikes etc... So many better arguments to choose than just saying "CEO's are lying!!1!".
lnenad
·8 日前·議論
Literally every CEO AI or otherwise claims bullshit about their product. It's their job. It's got nothing to do with people actually using something and not coming to terms with it having any value. If you've never seen a screwdriver it's a waste of time compared to nails.
lnenad
·10 日前·議論
Yup, it's wild watching this happen live.
lnenad
·15 日前·議論
Same as others have said. Unless you're targeting single digit amount of people start-ups this is a bad idea.
lnenad
·15 日前·議論
My point is you'd be doing the same if you wrote the code or an average person did it. If you spend time for the prep work AI is solid in execution.
lnenad
·15 日前·議論
I never understood people like you.

Factually that's just not true. Five years ago current llms would have seen like magic to even data scientists working on them and realistically their impact has been felt by many. Just taking jobs into account, imagine an average worker in an average industry; how do you think something like Fable compares? Worse? By how much?

Like even many years ago we had alphafold that had a non negligible impact on biology, who knows what's gonna happen when this technology grows up.