I really like everyone's idea of finding some way of letting the player play all 18 words. Either count up time, and use total time as the score (while allowing pausing). Or else just count the total score at the end, and if someone fails a word it's reduced from the score. So you got 16/18 word or something.
> That's not ever going to be enjoyable. Tolerable, perhaps, given focus on the goal, but few people would be willing to tolerate it.
This is wrong in multiple ways.
For one thing, lots of people enjoy pain and discomfort caused by exercise. Some people even enjoy pain directly! There's ample evidence of this. You're painting with way too broad a brush given that there's enormous variance between people.
Secondly, there's clear evidence that many people do enjoy exercising, because gyms/parks/basketball courts/whateverl are often very busy. Are all these people just waiting for it to end? They're there voluntarily.
I wish it were clearer in these kinds of posts how "I use AI code I don't understand" is so different from "I use libraries written by other people I don't understand", or "I work in a large codebase which was 99% written by other people, and I haven't seen all of it", or even "I use software written by other people I don't understand".
Yes. One point I don't usually see people address is that using external dependencies has much of the same properties.
Developers often depend on external libraries like things for Image processing, Numpy, etc. Do they have to "own" the code in those external libraries and review them, in the same way people sometimes insist you have to review all AI-generated code? Do developers have to be able to recreate Numpy by themselves, even if their field isn't necessarily numerical optimization etc?
That makes this more ok, IMO. I'm otherwise against "AI-edited" being part of the rules — it's very hard to draw the line (does asking an AI for synonyms of a word count?). AI-editing is especially a valuable tool for non-native-English speakers or similar.
Despite commenting on this literally five seconds ago in the sibling comment, I hadn't made the connection that if "vav" is V, then using "vav vav" is like "VV" which is like "W". I wonder if this is a real thing.
In any case, I'm pretty sure it's just a coincidence, I don't think it's a stylistic thing, unless I'm missing something.
It's pronounced the same as in English. Wiz, Waze, Wix. It's written with "double vav" in Hebrew, not just a single vav which would make it read as Viz.
Though note that as GP said, on the Wason selection task, people famously do much better when it's framed in a social context. That at least partially undermines your theory that its lack of familiarity with the terminology of formal logic.
I should clarify — I disagree with disallowing any comments that used LLMs in the writing. I think comments should be judged on their quality, not on how they were written.
I might agree (don't know) with the idea of limiting new accounts more heavily.
I wasn't talking about someone learning the language and using this instead of learning it.
There are a lot of people who understand English fairly well, but are not actively learning the language, are not native speakers, and can use LLMs to catch grammar mistakes that they otherwise wouldn't notice. Or catch small nuances in what they are saying, small implications that could otherwise go unnoticed.
In general, I push back on people saying "I can't find a good/legitimate use for this technology, therefore there are no good/legitimate use for it".
Some people can really benefit from using LLMs to help them write. E.g. non-native speakers.
LLM-assisted-writing doesn't have to be low effort, it can help people express themselves better in many cases. I'd argue that someone who spent their time doing multiple passes with an LLM to get their phrasing just write, has taken obviously more care than the majority of people on HN take before commenting.
And if you don't like the way something is written? Just down vote it. That's true whether or not it's partially/wholly written by an LLM.
1. We're very bad at measuring developer productivity. We've been trying to do it for a long time, and really have very little to show from it from my POV.
2. That said, almost all the people who "want to see a study" don't make sense to me. I don't remember anyone insisting on seeing a study that shows that writing Python is more productive than C; people just used it and largely agreed that it was. How many studies show that git (or other DVCS) are better than the things that preceded it? I don't know if any exist. I do know that nobody was looking for studies before switching to git.
I don't ever remember seeing any new technology in software development for which people demanded studies before adopting it. They just assumed that if the professional developers they trusted to build their software said something was better, then it was — a correct assumption IMO.
Now, we're seeing a technology which most professional developers — that have used it seriously, at least — insist is orders of magnitude better than anything else that's come before it. And suddenly developers can't be trusted? Suddenly, when the claimed effect is orders of magnitude bigger than almost any other new technology, developers are biased and incapable of making this kind of determination?
I really don't think that's a serious position to hold.
Turing gave a pretty rigorous definition of the Turing Test IMO. Well, as rigorous as something that is inherently "anecdotal" can be, which is part of the philosophical point of the Turing Test.
Looking to get in touch? [email protected].
I'm the Chief of Staff to the CTO at Irregular, a frontier AI Security company. We are working to prevent harm from AI models.
I was also previously a 2x entrepreneur of bootstrapped companies (professional services). I've been involved in many different fields in software.
Feel free to reach out about anything!