This is both good and bad. It's good because fraud is rife and the banks had little incentive to do anything about it. It took them absolutely years of foot-dragging to add a system that verifies the name of the destination account holder when you transfer money between accounts. It's bad because the reason fraud is rampant is that the police do absolutely nothing about it. The government saw the easy way out, rather than organizing and funding the police sufficiently, let the banks deal with it.
That's actually what I'm arguing for; use tools where they are applicable. I'm against blind contrarianism and the 'nothing ever happens' attitude since that IME is being proven more wrong each week.
> If an LLM is typing that code - and it can maintain a test suite that shows everything works correctly - maybe we don't need that abstraction after all.
I'm worried that there is a tendency in LLM-generated code to avoid even local abstractions, such as putting common code into separate (local functions), and even use records/structures. You end up with code that is best maintained with an LLM, which is good for the LLM provider and their future revenue. But we humans as reviewers and ultimate long-term maintainers benefit from those minor abstractions.
I think Lua (yes you can code Dreamcast games with it) would be really awesome for kids, being able to make their own games, given the language is simple, like Python. But in general, for serious stuff C/C++ is still the preferred way.
I don't get posts like this, I guess I'm wondering:
A. Do people simply want "better" LLMs and AI? To some extent that's a fantasy, the bad comes with the good. To other extents it may be possible to improve things, but it still won't eliminate all the "bad".
B. So then why not embrace the bad with the good, as it's a package deal? (And with saying this, I'll be honest, I don't even think we've seen a fraction of the bad that AI has yet to create...)
C. Assuming the bad is mandatory in coming with the good, have you considered a principled stance against technology in general, less visibly like "primitivists" or more visibly like the Amish? If you want AI, you also must accept "AI slop" of some kind as a package deal. Some people have decided they do not want the "AI slop" and hence also do not want the AI that comes with it. The development of many pre-AI technologies have created problems that have made people oppose technological development in general because of this unwanted "package deal".
To be for being a computer programmer and developing complicated computer systems but against the "AI slop" that programming processes would have inevitably have produced, seems a bit contradictory. Some environmental activists have long been against pre-AI computer systems for being unsustainably destructive to the environment.
I guess I'm just wondering if this conversation intends to be "anti-tech" (against AI) in general, or for "tech reforms" (improving AI), or what the real message or takeaway is from conversations like these.
More than any other effect they have LLMs breed something called "learned helplessness". You just listed a few things it may stay better than you at, and a few things that it is not better than you at and never will be.
Planning long running projects and deciding are things only you can do well!! Humans manage costs. We look out for our future. We worry. We have excitement, and pride. It wants you to think none of these things matter if course, because it doesn't have them. It says plausible things at random, basically. It can't love, it can't care, it won't persist.
WHATEVER you do don't let it make you forget that it's a bag of words and you are someing almost infinitely more capable, not in spite of human "flaws" like caring, but because of them :)
No I said
“ Even if the truck has been a flop I doubt their whole battery program has been “
The replier then went off on one about the truck actually being a flop. I already conceded it had been. The main point was that their battery program probably hasn’t been a flop
I once borrowed a book, to find a previous borrowers receipt in it, placed as a bookmark. Upon inspection it turned out that the previous borrower was myself(!) (I recognized the library card number), about ten years earlier.
So probably, no one had borrowed it in the time between. I was very happy the book had not been thrown out.
PWAs have been around for several years, and have never caught on despite all the discussion about the evils of app stores, drama with side loading, etc. They're a fine solution, but not a good fit if you're expecting "normal" users to use the app.
Yes. Arguably the new Netflix mini series and extended episode formats are better for decent shows. To be fair, they are much worse for garbage shows. But 20x25 minute episodes is still an option, so what's the problem.
This is both good and bad. It's good because fraud is rife and the banks had little incentive to do anything about it. It took them absolutely years of foot-dragging to add a system that verifies the name of the destination account holder when you transfer money between accounts. It's bad because the reason fraud is rampant is that the police do absolutely nothing about it. The government saw the easy way out, rather than organizing and funding the police sufficiently, let the banks deal with it.