HN user
LLMs don't produce ideas they implement them, anyone who is relying on LLM produced ideas basically doesn't matter the whole point is they make people who want to design interesting stuff have a lower barrier to entry of actually producing stuff.
Mass education was formed to destroy local cultures and languages in the prussian empire and revolutionary french to make sure people were compliant and wouldn't revolt against the state's control, it has never had anything to do with making people thinkers. This is the stated purpose, and always has been.
Yeah I was reading this seeing if there was something he'd actually show that would be useful, what pain point he is solving, but it's just slop.
It's just AI porn, not AI girlfriends. The article trying to sell what the developers themselves describe as a replacement to cam-girls as AI girlfriends is just stupid clickbait.(anyone who has tried to solve long term memory with LLMs knows we just aren't there yet in terms of long term persistent characters/personality with memory that don't just hallucinate non stop)
Who cares of people use AI generated porn instead of cam girls, I am against pornography generally but if anything lessening demand for actual people in the industry seems like a positive. People will get unhealthily attached to pornography but that's something that happens now anyway, it not actually being a person again seems better of two bad options.
This whole attitude is just the attitude of tech demos. Nothing good or worthwhile will be "completed playable game in a couple days" actually making anything good takes a huge amount of time and effort and thought. Empowering a small indie studio or solo indie dev so they could make something AA or AAA quality should be the actual goal. If you have 4 people able to make a skyrim level game in a year or two that's an insane feat, that should be the goal. Not someone who doesn't give a shit throwing some prompt and making some slop game that is exactly like 500 other slop games people generate with one prompt.
Like with that tech what kind of games would say random solo developers plugging at it and refining it be able to make in 4 years, that is the extremely compelling stuff. One person being able to make some auteur AAA quality game on their own, even if it takes a long time that might actually be good. If there are AI games those are the ones I'd want to play.
Compared to just coming up with and having solid systems for generating game assets? Actually having decent quality style consistent 3d models, texture work, animation, sound effects, etc (especially if it were built into say a game engine or something) would actually revolutionize indie game dev. Games are fundamentally artistic works so yes anything decent will actually require tailoring and crafting, AI set up to serve those people actually makes sense and is totally technically feasible are way easier problems to solve.
And no if you heavily visually modify something with AI models to the extent it significantly alters the appearance it simply has no way of being consistent unless you include the previously generated thing somehow which then has the huge problem of how do you maintain that over an 80 hour game? How do you inform the AI what visual elements (say text, interactive elements) are significant and can be modified and which can't? (You can't)
Actually using AI to generate assets, having a person go in to make sure they look good together and make sure they match then just saving them as textures so they function like normal game assets makes 10000x more sense then generating a user image then trying to extract "hey what did the wrapper of this candy bar look like" from one ai generated image and figuring out how to make sure that is consistent across that type of candy bar in the world and maintains that consistency throughout the entire game, instead of just you know, generating a texture of a candybar?
that rando's one looks like fucking garbage like a bunch of shitty B roll footage from an AI generated advertisement for some kind of pharmaceutical, the space and layout of the world clearly is constantly shifting and makes no sense. just generate a fucking map we already know how to do this, tracking geometry is an EASY problem for computers, don't force some AI shit to try to do it for some reason.
I do not get the point of this at all, why not just generate game assets and run them in an engine? With this format there would be no regularity that the thing you saw before will look the same (and that is not a fixable problem).
Actually figuring out and improving AI approaches for generating consistent and decent quality game assets is actually something that will be useful, this I have no idea the point of past a tech demo (and for some reason all the "ai game" people do this approach).
[flagged]
never met anyone who used codex lol
It's just the prompt: https://github.com/xai-org/grok-prompts/commit/c5de4a14feb50...
People who don't understand llms think saying don't shy away from making claims that are politically incorrect means it won't PC. In reality saying that just makes things associated with politically incorrect more likely. The /pol/ board is called politically incorrect, the ideas people "call" politically incorrect most of all are not Elon's vague centrist stuff it's the extreme stuff. LLMs just track probable relations between tokens, not meaning, it having this result based on that prompt is obvious.
Anthropomorphizing LLMs is just because half the stock market gains are dependent on it, we have absurd levels of debt we will either have to have insane growth out of or default, and every company and "person" is trying to hype everyone up to get access to all of this liquidity being thrown into it.
I agree with the author, but people acting like they are conscious or humans isn't weird to me, it's just fraud and liars. Most people basically have 0 understanding of what technology or minds are philosophically so it's an easy sale, and I do think most of these fraudsters also likely buy into it themselves because of that.
The really sad thing is people think "because someone runs an ai company" they are somehow an authority on philosophy of mind which lets them fall for this marketing. The stuff these people say about this stuff is absolute garbage, not that I disagree with them, but it betrays a total lack of curiosity or interest in the subject of what llms are, and the possible impacts of technological shifts as those that might occur with llms becoming more widespread. It's not a matter of agreement it's a matter of them simply not seeming to be aware of the most basic ideas of what things are, technology is, it's manner of impacting society etc.
I'm not surprised by that though, it's absurd to think because someone runs some AI lab or has a "head of safety/ethics" or whatever garbage job title at an AI lab they actually have even the slightest interest in ethics or any even basic familiarity with the major works in the subject.
The author is correct if people want to read a standard essay articulating it more in depth check out https://philosophy.as.uky.edu/sites/default/files/Is%20the%2... (the full extrapolation requires establishing what things are and how causality in general operates and how that relates to artifacts/technology but that's obvious quite a bit to get into).
The other note would be something sharing an external trait means absolutely nothing about causality and suggesting a thing is caused by the same thing "even to a way lesser degree" because they share a resemblance is just a non-sequitur. It's not a serious thought/argument.
I think I addressed the why of why this weirdness comes up though. The entire economy is basically dependent on huge productivity growth to keep functioning so everyone is trying to sell they can offer that and AI is the clearest route, AGI most of all.
People using words in a way you don't like isn't abuse
Terms have meaning, and words can refer to different terms. People quibbling about what's an engineer or not is about as helpful as the stupid hotdog sandwich thing, it's arbitrary an engineer is not a determinate thing.
AFAIK the reason why the word engineer has some specific clout people get touchy about is because in normal engineering fields becoming a licensed engineer is kind of a big deal for them so they get really particular about it. I only ever refer to myself as an engineer to bother people who get cunty about it. Get over yourself, why do you care if a designer calls themself an engineer? Are you worried it'll make it hard to find other true engineers so you will have a harder time finding civil engineers to talk about how calling apis is basically the same as building bridges?
On my personal projects it's easily 10x faster if not more in some circumstances. At work where things are planned out months in advanced and I'm working with 5 different teams to figure out the right way to do things for requirements that change 8 times during development? Even just stuff with PR review and making sure other people understand it and can access it. idk sometimes it's probably break even or that 10-15%. It just doesn't work well in some environments and what really makes it flourish (having super high quality architectural planning/designs/standardized patterns etc.) is basically just not viable at anything but the smallest startups and solo projects.
Frankly even just getting engineers to agree upon those super specificized standardized patterns is asking a ton, especially since lots of the things that help AI out are not what they are used to. As soon as you have stuff that starts deviating it can confuse the AI and makes that 10x no longer accessible. Also no one would want to review the PRs I'd make for the changes I do on my "10x" local project... Especially maintaining those standards is already hard enough on my side projects AI will naturally deviate and create noise and the challenge is constructing systems to guide that to make sure nothing deviates (since noise would lead to more noise).
I think it's mostly a rebalancing thing, if you have 1 or a couple like minded engineers who intend to do it they can get that 10x. I do not see that EVER existing in any actual corporate environment or even once you get more then like 4 people tbh.
Ai for middle management and project planning on the other hand...
okay can we cure tinnitus please
the issue you are talking about just came up where core basically just did what mining companies want. The result was 14% of nodes now use bitcoin knots a fork of core that doesn't allow that. Core is just 1 github repo it only matters until it doesn't.
Nation states and large companies or individuals with significant stake in BTC running mining softwar thing seems obviously how it will inevitably end up. I don't really care what big blockers thing this isn't a "new thing" they've been running their mouths about this for a decade and every time they do something it ends up just being a way to push a scam where they control it and make money. Check the bcash/btc pair.
Profit driven mining companies are honestly kind of not a very good force and push for lots of weird scams to encourage mining like memecoins on BTC or "dog pictures", and also regularly mine just pump and dump alts (including the biggest BTC miners).
Mining should just be as distributed as possible and integrated into stranded power likely generating a small if any profit.
Lol total garbage people have been whining about the blocks regularly being EMPTY now, a huge % of transactions just occur off chain on exchanges/lightning/etc. There are no 100 dollar fees you can basically do everything for basically free. https://mempool.space/ look, you can see how many blocks aren't filled lol. This piece is literally just garbage. Big blockers are scam artists.
ai power users will drop shit immediately, yes they probably have long term contracts with companies but anyone seriously engaged has switched to claude code now (probably including many devs AT openai/google/etc.)
If you don't think claude code is just miles ahead of other things you haven't been using it (or well)
I am certain they keep metrics on those "power users" (especially since they probably work there) and when everyone drops what they were using and moves to a specific tool that is something they should be careful of.
Yeah I hit it again today, refactoring can use a ton. It did make a bit of a mess but planning it out making sure everything is tested and having it run through checking the tests making sure they all still pass uses lots of tokens but passively doing that while I'm working is way faster than doing it manually.
Sometimes I'll just experiment with weird stuff and end up reverting it or delete it afterword's. Also fun to build really nice data visualizations for data I'm working with.
the pricing is for token usage in 5/hr windows not monthly caps. if you use it intensely a couple times a month within a 5hr window it's not hard to hit the cap and want to upgrade. Personally I just work on some side projects during work on another monitor and just every half an hour so throw something at it and that's been very valuable for me.
For any professional SWE 1/200 a month is basically nothing in terms of the value it delivers. They just rolled it out to the 20/month plan with limited usage but as soon as people get used to it I have no idea why they wouldn't upgrade unless they are just entering the field and don't have a job yet.
The main thing I think is people just trying to do everything in "one prompt" or one giant thing throwing all the context at it. What you said is correct but also, instead of making one massive request breaking it down into parts and having multiple prompts with smaller context that say all have structured output you feed into each other.
Make prompts focused with explicit output with examples, and don't overload the context. Then the 3 you said basically.
Proper usage of LLMs so you don't just flood them with useless context will just be custom tailored prompts that only include the pertinent context, with prompts saying how it's related to what you're looking for. I don't think there's a cheap way around it maybe on the plus side you can tune them using ai code. I think tools are really over used and over-rated and have had horrible experience with them, nothing beats just custom tailoring stuff and setting up a system around it.
What I do is use elixir pheonix, have a genserver keep track of the user state and I just include the related state in the request and just helper functions to generate the related prompts per type of state/context and append them wherever makes the most sense.
I think LLMs make most sense to be viewed of as singular atomic interactions where you have the whole input (prompt/context/data) and get a concrete output. Everything else just seems like people being lazy trying to avoid thinking about the best way of structuring it. Where you put the context/data and how you include it will vary per prompt or the specific atomic interaction, there is no standard rule each interaction is unique. You have to experiment and see what provides the best output for each kind of request. I'd read Anthropics prompting docs if you haven't it's very good. https://docs.anthropic.com/en/docs/build-with-claude/prompt-...
My way of thinking is just viewing every isolated LLM request as a unique function that is the prompt + llm = a unique function Context is just what data you pass into the function (prompt+llm+settings(temp, etc))(data) to get whatever specific output you want. The prompt includes prewriting user/system messages, system prompt, structured output stuff or whatever. Any single request might lead to 1 or 30 of these that feed back into each other. But yeah based on that it depends on just custom tailoring them for anything, it's pretty conceptual and intellectual but I find it fun but I don't think there's any easy way around it. Having the ability to have all your requests be stateful and modify what goes into the prompt based on the current user state (like genservers/elixir makes very easy) is a nice technical thing that helps though.
Also his very late work, ethics in the conflicts of modernity is often looked over for his older ones but is probably my favorite.
Watch the guy who came up with Erlang, the Actor model and CSP discuss it: https://youtu.be/37wFVVVZlVU One of my favorite videos on youtube.
If something has only existed for decades it is essentially brand new and in a trial period, the trial failed. The context Chesterton meant was for things that have centuries or millennia of history behind them being upended. I'm sorry I know we like to feel very important in tech but if something hasn't been a thing for 100 years it does not matter historically.
There is no mystery why these institutions that are 30 years old exist, we have the documents and probably the people that formed them still around. We know what they got paid for and what they did. It's a very different thing if we have some cultural historical tradition (say gender roles, alcohol, only males voting, the stuff Chesterton actually talked that were actually issues at the time) that has persisted for centuries or thousands of years being upended because "i don't like it" without understanding it's actual structure.
Here's another good quote (the book is free to read, quotes are no way for actual human beings to think https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/470/pg470-images.html#c... ) >Suppose that a great commotion arises in the street about something, let us say a lamp-post, which many influential persons desire to pull down. A grey-clad monk, who is the spirit of the Middle Ages, is approached upon the matter, and begins to say, in the arid manner of the Schoolmen, “Let us first of all consider, my brethren, the value of Light. If Light be in itself good—” At this point he is somewhat excusably knocked down. All the people make a rush for the lamp-post, the lamp-post is down in ten minutes, and they go about congratulating each other on their unmediaeval practicality. But as things go on they do not work out so easily. Some people have pulled the lamp-post down because they wanted the electric light; some because they wanted old iron; some because they wanted darkness, because their deeds were evil. Some thought it not enough of a lamp-post, some too much; some acted because they wanted to smash municipal machinery; some because they wanted to smash something. And there is war in the night, no man knowing whom he strikes. So, gradually and inevitably, to-day, to-morrow, or the next day, there comes back the conviction that the monk was right after all, and that all depends on what is the philosophy of Light. Only what we might have discussed under the gas-lamp, we now must discuss in the dark.
And before people think "Oh yeah this applies to USAID" this is specifically in the context of people upending historically common beliefs Chesterton viewed himself as a great defender of. If you don't think morality and truthe are real and goodness is a part of nature you are still living in violation of that and that's probably why you have a hard time understanding why people are against things like USAID. Chesterton would be disgusted to be used in such a manner.
reread the quote