boringuser2

Turbo is basically unusable. It doesn't produce code. It produces steps.

LLMs aren't logical machines, so any non-trivial bug-fix is just likely to introduce more bugs.

It's a bit of a misunderstanding of how LLMs are supposed to be used.

One caveat is if you're very untalented, it might be able to solve very common patterns successfully.

I think it's a little questionable to prompt language models with "bugs you're trying to solve".

GPT-4 base = (or slightly better) Claude 3 Opus >>> GPT 3.5 >>> GPT-4 Turbo

If you want to secure the future for your people, you need to execute large government infrastructure programs.

Turns out leaving all of this to the profit motive puts people on the street. Amazing.

Worst case scenario it bends (this takes a lot of abuse) rather than snaps like plywood.

A lot of meh furniture that uses steel will last, too.

What metrics would you prefer? Feelings?

Regarding France, my understanding is that their scores are some of the lowest in Europe and below the OCED average on the PISA exam (comparatively, the United States is above the OCED average), though there might be demographic considerations.

The problem is when the "ordering" of science is horizontal.

I.e. Einstein reading their works and copying their conclusions.

This is highly likely to have happened, regardless of the "completeness" of one work or another.

The thing I like about this is that it levels celebrity (something man-made) with rationality.

Why not reduce Einstein's celebrity? It reflects reality more accurately to do so.

I don't think anything, im referring to allegations.

Right, it's not so much a critique of the author's work that I've presented as much as a meta-commentary on the article in the context that we're posting on a forum that aggregates content for public consumption.

The author is fine, he can publish whatever he pleases. I can't stop him, as you've pointed out.

From a meta-commentary perspective, it is actually quite interesting that Einstein's alleged plagiarism covers many diverse sources.

I like how the concept that third world workers that are exploited by greedy capitalists to undercut native labor are being treated unfairly and exploited is presented as novel.

That's literally why they're there in the first place.

If you want to talk about contributions to the general theory of relativity, why not talk about the people that Einstein is alleged to have plagiarized, Henri Poincaré, David Hilbert and Hendrik Antoon Lorentz?

You're hand-waving the effects of a labor surplus created by immigration on wages.

During covid-19, when immigration was suppressed and the labor surplus was attenuated, something amazing happened -- wages rose across the board in America.

Yes, outsourcing is a huge issue. It is dealt with in various ways, and there are substantial barriers to in sourcing (my company has tried to do this, but decided to hire in America due to substantial costs).

Immigration is also a huge causative factor impacting wages and labor bargaining.

If you're a protectionist, that's good, I also support that. But you should probably apply your ideology across the board rather than selectively, which I suspect you cannot do due to your partisanship.

I'm not confusing anything, so your comment ended up being useless noise.

Another facet to it is that most disciplines where you can just about-face all of your established core theses is generally called "pseudoscience".

One thing that absolutely savages my mind is the fact that those on the nominal left-wing have abandoned this obvious truth and focused on an ideology that benefits some sort of global majority versus their own theoretical constituents.

The perfect example is Bernie Sanders going from "immigration is obviously bad because its a tool capitalist's use to undercut American labor" to generic racial grievance "progressive" guy.

I don't really think reading books is the way to go generally to improve at the job of making things, at least, not any of those books.

Making things seems to do the trick there.

In the job market, it's all about how you stack up to other people.

That kid that blows you away will likely stagnate like all of us, he might pick up a few tricks, though.

I'm not entirely convinced.

I've seen interns that are better than some of my 15+ year colleagues.

I'm better than most of them myself, but I've also seen interns better than me -- better problem solving skills and attention to detail I suppose. Very inconsistent correlation in terms of time spent outside of filtering people. Of course, you used to have a knowledge advantage that would hold for a bit, but intelligent usage of GPT-4 removes even that.

I'm pretty sure the whole enterprise is a combination of being gifted intellectually, with maybe a sprinkle of actual effort and abilify to sustain your attention on supremely boring tasks -- but mostly just your innate gifts at work.

When I say "better than"... well, here's my opinion: In programming, someone more talented can be up to 10x more productive at each tier of competence, shall we say. My least productive (senior and junior) colleagues are 10-100x less productive than me. My most productive colleagues (senior and junior) are probably 10x more productive than me.

This is an interesting discussion to me because I used to believe the whole tiered conception of programming knowledge until I learned that this wasn't the case through experience.

It's all just problem solving, and you're either smarter or less smart and you can't change this with even 1000 years of study.

Thoughts on subjecting Jewish-Americans to this?

We've lost reems of technology to I*aeli espionage.

Thumbs up emoji.

6 years is sufficient experience, and we're good, thanks!

This book took me from having nothing -- literally being a political science major grocery store employee -- to making 2xx,xxx YOY.

It was challenging and made me question whether or not I had it in me to code. Turns out, I could, and, vis-a-vis my peers, exceptionally well.

Well, I took me, but this book was my first real introduction to computer science.

Funnily enough, I didn't then and don't now personally care for the author (he seems untalented as a teacher), but I feel he accidentally made a good resource in his hubris.

It also makes you feel like something as trivial as taking out your garbage out to the curb is a monumental physical task.

The quality of life improvement from not being obese is obscene.

Being negatively predisposed to bad things is both normal and healthy behavior.

Also, using heuristics to make judgments about situations is how intelligence works.

fatphobia

First of all, I really find this term to be gross. You should be afraid of being unhealthy.

Second of all, are you posting that you have individual metabolic differences that substantially alter your caloric expenditure?

FYI most studies show very little innate caloric expenditure differences between human beings outside of what can be predicted based on their body mass. Ironically, heavier people burn more calories, not less, innately.

This makes sense because metabolic machinery is complex and so fundamental to life that it would obviously be very tightly tuned genetically.

A controversial take from this is that, aside from the health benefits, you will also accrue personal and professional benefits from not being fat.

I remember interviewing when I was chubbier post-COVID thinking that the only evidence the interviewer has of my self-control and drive is that I have none. Best case scenario, you are interviewing a temporarily embarrassed skinny person.

Noble prize winner James Watson, famous bluntly tell it like it is-er, said he didn't hire fat people for this reason.

(This has since been rectified by reinstating strength training and dietary controls, which I recommend.)

That was his original inspiration but he has matured far beyond that.

If he's not a Chinese national, that makes the discussion much more likely to get me censured when I suggest the obvious corrective remediation.