davydm

You'd have to be well dear not to notice it. And our ears are more than good enough to home in on it to the point of seeing it. I recommend an ig nobel.

great until something goes wrong and you can't get your own data back :/

I used to, but it just means an extra round of conversation, so I stopped.

honestly makes me want to learn haskell and find a company that focuses on it.

I'm so tired (so incredibly tired) of all the ai slop I've seen, just in my company, and the ai-bros frothing at the mouth about the next terminal to run their agents and how it's making them "so much faster"; even a comment yesterday (with supporting sentiment) that having to do something without ai was tediously slow. The problem is that the _generation_ part is fast. So people only remember that. They don't remember the time taken to craft a good prompt that gets to a reasonable output. They don't remember the time wasted in PR over swathes of comments. They don't remember the days I spent having to unfuck the project from aigen code that literally broke checkout. They got their little dopamine hit, and moved on.

I use ai - claude, to be specific - as an "interactive stack-overflow", to ask questions about the code, and to help me learn how to be better. I still firmly believe that the biggest problem with ai-gen adoption is that the people who think they're getting the most out of it are the same people who don't understand what it output, so are unable to push back when it does something stupid.

I have to push back _regularly_. Like at least 30-50% of the time.

The tools are only useful (imo) when an expert can verify the results - even in cases where I wasn't sure of the actual workings of the code (eg getting Claude to use the typescript ast to do clever linting or type-file generation), I can verify via tests - the box can remain black if I can verify the output. The average vibe-coder verifies nothing directly - it launches, so it's good, right? Oh, how did our checkout screen end up infinitely putting-and-polling at two endpoints? No problem - give it to a real engineer to solve it.

I'm with Linus on this - ai is a _tool_. And much like how we wouldn't allow shit code from any other tool (ide, compiler, linter, whatever) to sift into prod, we should be on top of what we're using this tool for - not putting the onus on someone else to clean up the garbage. AI codegen is most dangerous in the hands of people who have no idea what it's doing - they're firmly stuck in the initial Dunning-Krueger peak, unaware of just what a mess they've made.

Not to mention duplication - literally just had to ask someone to refactor so that we're not sending two components which are 90% the same to the client, but rather pulling out the 90% core into a mixin. Code is so over-commented, it simply _has_ to be ai-gen. But I also can't call it out, because now it's dev egos in the mix too.

The one golden hope I'm leaning on is that eventually everything will implode, people will see the light, and go back to using a tool as a tool, instead of just trusting the bag of words to do it right. In particular, I've learned that ai is to be incorporated in some ingestion pipeline where the final result has financial implications. That's going to be hilarious when it makes a proper goof.

Big Snack learning from Big Pharma

My tests? Sure. Co-workers? Unlikely. Historical co-workers who are no longer with us except in the code they left? Not a chance.

But when I have to work in an area, the first thing I look for is coverage, and if it's not there, I add "fixing tests" to enforce the existing behavior before making changes so I'll know when I broke something.

another blog to avoid then; the intentionality of actually writing from scratch is kinda part of the point.

the other point is that "more data" doesn't necessarily mean "more better" - I'd rather have 1 well-thought-out, curated article on something that matters than 10 insipid pieces compiled by ai from links.

I think the "giving back to humanity" angle is naive - Altman has walked back on so many promises, and the obvious answer is that he wants government backing to be too large to fail and the preferred choice.

Cool, another person I shouldn't bother reading, since they just accept aigen responses to stuff as their own.

yeah, i use that often, eg when a video is slow on a website - at least yt-dlp will shard out multiple piece-downloaders, and I can get the video in a few seconds or minutes, and just watch it. Also great for anonymizing sharing videos - download the actual video, share that. Not an url (:

In much the same vein, I rarely actually watch stuff _on_ netflix, through a browser - I watch sped up, and the quality just degrades. Since I pay for it, I feel nothing for downloading a ripped copy to watch it locally :D

because otherwise how would the queen know what you're up to all the time? :D

it's an interesting talk, my take being:

concurrency _is_ parallelism, but for I/O. People often think of parallelism for the case of making something go faster - eg placing two computations in parallel (the definition posed in the video), OR placing two I/O operations in parallel - so this is the keyboard-vs-mouse in the OS, even when you're on one core only; this is multiple web requests in JavaScript, which does not support multi-threading, but 100% does support concurrency for I/O operations - that... badum-tiss! RUN IN PARALLEL.

I get the point of the talk, and it's well interesting, but I think it depends on how one views things.

Makes it way easier for nefarious persons to dupe others with lookalike sites mimicking, eg, google login. People should always check exactly where there's sending login credentials to, or risk account takeover.

I would have read more, but just a few seconds on that site made my eyes bleed. Good grief - both light-colored and low contrast. It's as if the author doesn't want to be read.

And the answer to the actual question posed by the article is simple: money. Big companies made huge bank by offloading risk onto people. Let's not pretend it was anything else.

Why would I want to log into some arb service to read an article? Bonkers.

Funny... Trump scores 996, but isn't shown on the leaderboard, which tops out at 993.

and if you're still struggling, try a little weed - i have so many thoughts, a lot conversationally with myself, in my head, when a little high (:

"If you look at any high-value target, you can track them down through their vices"

yep, follow the yellow road of mcdonalds wrappers to find the worst president probably ever.

it's now or never - become McDonaldsLand or stay America.

PS: please get rid of your president - the whole world, which didn't think much of you before, thinks even less of you now, because you elected a trouble-maker racist moron who is so thirsty for attention he'll literally fuck the entire world to get it.

pity it's like "who's line is it anyway?" - the points are meaningless and really don't matter

First, we money is a delusion we all agree to share - it has no intrinsic value whatsoever

Second, stock is an even more-removed delusion based on what people _think_ a company might be worth to buy - a value that changes at the drop of a hat (look at the recent massive dips, eg nvidia)

Third, and this is probably the real bummer - all this delusion is just going to make Smelly Tusk even more insufferable. Yay.

Because there are always people trying to take advantage of others and I guess most people would prefer less of that in society.

Personally, I think it's been a boon.

Yes, people are more lonely, but I'd counter with my experience over the last 5 years or so: people at work are simply NOT your friend. End of story. They never were, they never will be. You MIGHT find A friend at work. You might even be lucky enough to move into a company where you already have a friend or two. But the realisation has hit hard over the last few years that 99% of interactions within a work sphere are not genuine human connection. Most are simply data flow to support the business. Some parts are masking fluff that people put up to appear friendly. But with less time spent dazzled by people's social skills, their true intentions come through plainly in their work outputs and reciprocity - most especially the latter is telling: I've stopped being such an eager volunteer to help people (at least, most people) simply because I know I can't expect the same back - and my salary is paid based on _my_ outputs, not those of co-workers, so if they're not going to co-operate, there's little incentive for me to do so.

Company leaders also seem to be even more out of touch with their people as they are no longer forced to fraternise, but can instead remain atop their hills, barking orders and peering out their their foggy scopes at the terrain below. What a wonderful time to be alive - when the socially malleable have their substrate taken away to expose exactly how shallow they are.

1. The perception that linux doesn't matter because it's not a big enough market (that's changing, largely due to valve) 2. The simple truth that it's way easier to wrest control of the machine on windows - for tasks like enforcing DRM and licensing - if y'all look underneath your seats, y'all get a free kernel-level anticheat! 3. WSL doesn't do display well - cli is fine, GUI apps still require some interaction/tricks like remote X or similar (afaik - this could be old knowledge, since I haven't been in windoze land for a long time - at least a year) 4. To be a viable choice for GUI toolkit (really, the thing that's hugely different), one either has to use something that abstracts the underlying api (and often ends up losing something, somewhere, out of a necessity for a standard api) or manually write code for two toolkits (eg native win32 and cocoa is probably already too much for a lot of places, and if they were going to go cross-platform, the easy money is in OSX, not linux - everything there is paid - I wasted around $300 just trying to make a mbp not suck before finally giving up). So either you adopt and learn a toolkit you can use everywhere (eg Qt) and accept the limitations, or you write your own, but that ties you to an OS unless you really had an aim to bother with other platforms, and... see (1)

Mainly: true sandbox separation. I don't want the model having full access to my machine. With a dump format that Claude understands, I'm able to pass only the files I want Claude to see, and he can't break any of them. I don't care about setting up access lists and so on. I don't trust that the cli product will be properly sanboxed and it's quite clear their software offerings are largely aigen code, and I catch bugs from Claude every day. I also get useful stuff, so it's worth it, but definitely not worth it, imo, to grant it any access to my machine.

Spoken like a true bot sir!

I've yet to see any masterpieces. I've had a lot of good enough code come out, and some that was blatantly wrong. You still need to be an expert in the domain if you want to use ai codegen effectively. I've been using Claude for a few months now.

cool idea - i can't tell from the page if there's any choice of model (though the name and voices suggest gpt only); neat idea though. Perhaps this is the solution: devs should have a device like this, and pedal to power it. Solves the power problem, also solves the typical "devs need exercise" problem.

Ah, I see his philosophy of "steal from the poor to give to the rich" still strongly in play. What a useless muppet.

and I just upvoted a comment, refreshed, and it's still upvoted - perhaps check your network stack in your browser? Sounds like something isn't getting through and the UI is unaware.