_se

No... no it doesn't.

It literally is just next word prediction. If you don't understand that, everything else you're thinking and saying is based on an incorrect foundation.

Take a step back and really take a look at what's going on. You are not thinking clearly.

Okay grandpa, let's get you back to bed

Everyone saying it is in the "not as good as they think they are" camp is the very obvious explanation.

What in the LLM psychosis is this

Literally the same thing people have been saying for two years. How gullible can you be.

I think that's the whole point of LLMs

Anyone who certified you with AI code reviews is a moron.

Confidently incorrect, the best kind of incorrect.

Massively different from algorithmic doom scrolling feeds.

I would call HN a type of social media lite, but not the type of social media that's leading to generation-wide mental health issues in children/teens.

Yes, social media creates useful idiots, you are correct. And also possibly one of them, if you're arguing that it somehow makes people smarter or more informed.

Social media is so, so much worse than anything a government could come up with. This is a good thing for the world even if there are ulterior motives at play.

Everyone is free to be as snooty as they like. If a report is harder to read/understand/validate because the author just yolo'ed it with an LLM, that's on the report author, not on the maintainers.

It's not okay to foist work onto other people because you don't think LLM slop is a problem. It is absolutely a problem, and no amount of apologizing and pontificating is going to change that.

Grow up and own your work. Stop making excuses for other people. Help make the world better, not worse. It's obvious that LLMs can be useful for this purpose, so people should use them well and make the reports useful. Period.

It can be correct and slop at the same time. The reporter could have reported it in a way that makes it clear a human reviewed and cared about the report.

Slop is a function of how the information is presented and how the tools are used. People don't care if you use LLMs if they don't tell you can use them, they care when you send them a bunch of bullshit with 5% of value buried inside it.

If you're reading something and you can tell an LLM wrote it, you should be upset. It means the author doesn't give a fuck.

Yes, it is very possible for someone to be smart and an idiot at the same time.

Do you think you're smart? Have you ever done something and said "man, I'm an idiot"? It's just like that.

Of course, the other explanation is that he's just grifting, which is also very possible.

250k isn't a budget. It's the minimum that he said someone _should_ spend or else he would think they're doing something wrong.

It's an insane take. Completely bone-headed. Just obvious grift.

The people who don't care about LLM slop being shoved down their throat at every turn are the "weirdos" here. The project might not be slop, but the website certainly is, and it's perfectly reasonable for people to stop reading immediately and decide that they don't care about what could be an otherwise useful project when they determine that the author didn't give enough of a shit to even write the text on the website themselves.

Usually it's because the kid won't wear headphones. Not really an excuse, but a lot of the time the kid is just going to do what they want. What the parents should do in that situation is make them watch without sound, but that's harder than the alternative, so they just do whatever.

Really, REALLY make no mistakes!!!

Are you implying that someone who prefers Eclipse is more likely to be a good software engineer than someone who prefers Emacs? If so, that is so hilariously backwards that I can't even begin to understand the types of experiences that you must've had.

I am sure that you're objectively wrong if that is what you're saying.

Definitely the first two, but the latter is not particularly common at most firms. It's hard to put in the type of thought that you need when you're working that much. It's not slinging power points.

55-60 is much more common.

Way, way more than 10, but I agree with you that they are not taking even 1% of tech talent per year.

Typing code has never been the difficult part of quant finance.

Just like most nonfiction books, this post is a lot longer than it has to be. I think the core idea here is good, but it's pretty ironic that I wanted to stop halfway through.

When writing is good, succinct, and to the point, people will finish reading if they're interested in the material. If it's too long, fluffy, repetitive, annoying... people won't. I don't think it's a huge surprise.

That's the point :)

Taking the high road doesn't work with this type of individual. Sometimes you need to call a spade a spade (or, more likely, call a bot a bot).

If you are pushing 40k lines of code per day you are an idiot and should be fired.

LLM docs suck.

For technically complex things, they EXTRA suck.

This is a bad idea.

Hilarious for this to be downvoted.

"LLMs are deceiving their creators!!!"

Lol, you all just want it to be true so badly. Wake the fuck up, it's a language model!

Brother, you are just outing yourself as being incompetent here. That is embarrassing.