galkk

How hard would it be to build a new Google Search with a small team and an LLM?

Impossible

Only people who saw nothing bad in passing pairs .begin(), .end() in tons of places in c++ for like 30 years can say that thing like ‘auto&&’ improves anything.

The parent of my reponse, that you answered to, was about Joe Rogan’s club. You didn’t read the thread

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48846925

This is great. Those bullshit degrees are example of externalising costs and capturing profits.

Although, unfortunately, I suspect that this will be gamed by things like “this is super unique diploma” and there are no pros on market yet. Rotate that every 5 years and voila. I’m sure that every smart people are already thinking about schemes much more elaborate

I feel that I’m reading AI answer. Nobody needs your generalizations. Stay on point.

Have you read the referred article? Did you look up the club rules? How are NYC rules related to it, is it in NYC?

What is your point? Because it is clear that you comment with your prejudice and preconditions, not with article.

I don’t think that this is the case. I’m using Claude the same way I did at the beginning of the year, and results are increasingly more untrustworthy and I don’t know how to say it, but they are “less” for same effort from my side.

It is super anecdotal, but I’m convinced that Claude peaked in January/April period and since then is on steady decline. And I don’t know what they do in background, but the older models (Opus 4.6 in particular) have degraded too. Same for codex but I use it less overall.

“You were right to push back on this”, “my previous claim was too broad” - this is super annoying

Honestly, I’m super tired of the trope “we at college teach to learn”

And that’s what I’m asking.

What is philosophy major? What he supposed to do. Is he philosopher? What does it mean?

Like I, with my cs major, at least in my country can go and teach cs in school, my diploma presumably allows me to do so. I can imagine that there are similar occupations for philosophy majors. But this is not the goal of the education, and I’m trying to understand what is the goal.

Which rules are broken?

Like with guns (opening paragraph about removing concealed carry guns). The sign “no guns on premise” doesn’t have power of law, unless it’s like school, but if owner asks you to leave, you should comply, otherwise you will be trespassing

Hmm, nobody is entitled to a private property visit and owner can set any rules they like

I am not trolling or anything, just have genuine question.

What is the expected deliverable of philosophy degree and of its holders in 21st century? What do they produce. I can understand stem - the ones who have it presumably can do math, engineering, construction, even pure math I can to some extent understand. I can understand, to some extent, even memetic English language, women studies, dance etc.

But what is philosophy degree? I don’t think that it’s just history of philosophy.

Like when I was in college I read history of western philosophy. And for majority of philosophers there the thought was that yes, maybe at a time it was reasonable opinion, but looking back from 21st century it was often pretentious nonsense. So what are modern philosophers doing, especially run of the mill philosophy majors? Again, I’m not trying to be rude or anything, I just don’t even know how to formulate that question :)

So I would rather share a match with the occasional cheater than run un-auditable ring-0 software on the same machine I use for anything private.

You’re not a gamer so you don’t have a word here. I was a competitive gamer and I would happily accept even the game where you need a government id to be allowed to play in ranked/matchmaking. I do dual boot for gaming/home stuff though.

Looks like an AI rewrite of something better.

I agree with first point “Nil Check on a Dependency” and disagree with 2nd point

“Nil Check on a Dependency in the Constructor”, at least in the way it is described in article’s example.

The _parameter_ check in the constructor is the standard practice of testing on perimeter/blundaries. You test your parameters on the public methods (that constructor obviously is), and assume valid state in private methods. And even there I can accept practice of debug build assertions (DCHECK/TCHECK in Google c++ terminology ).

It’s okay to pat yourself on the back sometimes, but you have 0 idea about me/my kid, if she’s neurotypical or neurodivergent.

So I suggest to keep unasked parental advices or expectations how other kids should behave to yourself.

Completely understandable.

My 6yo kiddo recently realized that smart speaker (Google home) can not only play her favorite songs, but answer her homework questions. And it was something not that trivial, like “which animal from the list changes color of its fur when seasons change: tiger, arctic fox, something else”.

And now I need to either disable everything or figure out how to turn that off for her.

No, they don’t. Especially in elementary school.

My living example - my kiddo didn’t speak a word in English until 4.5 years, when she went into preschool. Russian speaking home and daycare do that for you.

After 9 months in American preschool, she completely switched to English language as her primary. 2 years later, and she speaks Russian with strong accent.

Dremel/big query Spanner Borg Chrome

None of those were acquisitions

Two years ago I bought 192GB RAM for my desktop (2 sets of 2x48GB) for $700. Today, the Amazon price for the same sets is $2500. The world is insane.

It’s more like Opus wants you to do its job for it. I feel that amount of time when I tell it “no, you do that” increases with each new version.

Reminds me words, attributed to one of first soviets astronauts: "You're sitting on top of 9 story building, completely filled with fuel and they say to you: don't worry, we calculated everything".

The exploded one was about 15-story building.

Then max+, then ultra, then ultra pro

Ok, it could be a language barrier again, but this thread started with you interpreting my words in a way I didn’t mean. Then, when I interpreted your wording differently from how you intended, you treated my reading as if it were completely baseless and unfair.

Here is the wording I was reacting to:

> and ai art can be good.

What is “good” here? Aesthetically pleasing? Then sure, that’s a subjective matter of opinion. Even the yuckiest of gore can be aesthetically pleasing to the right person. Cronenberg has a cult following for a reason.

To me, it feels like you are having it both ways. First, you treated my wording - “even worse” - as meaningful according to its normal English meaning, and even after I explained what I meant, you still went back to the dictionary definition. But when your own wording was quite loaded: “the yuckiest of gore,” “to the right person,” and “cult following” - and I read it that way, you dismissed my reading as assumptions in my head.

That feels like a double standard. I was expected to accept the normal meaning of my wording, but your wording was supposed to be judged only by your later explanation of intent. I should’ve known, obviously, that you like gore.

I accept your clarification, but I do not accept that my reading was unreasonable. We clearly read tone and meaning differently here.

I am sorry for confusion. I’m typing on the phone and accidentally preessed reply before writing full answer.

I started updating my comment above as soon as I saw that I posted reply (the one that your answer addresses). Hope that clarifies my position and gives you an explanation where I disagree with your comment.

Language barrier, sorry.

For “even worse” - I meant different, and I think your analogy is unfair.

One can say something like “this is not your best job. It is solid product of a carpenter. Even worse, I know you could do much better, like a woodworker”. And nothing here says that the job is _bad_.

But again, my native language is not English and the way I say things may surely sound unnatural.

——

How going back to your argument. You already subtly move goalposts and give humans mich more benefit of the doubt and leeway than you give to ai.

There’s no technique involved to typing words in a box.

There sure is. And that’s what separates results. Most of the things that I enjoy are clearly have good deal of thought in inventing lyrics (again, I watch lore channels and the way the lyrics are made is clear that there is a good amount of thought, prompt and maybe even manual tinkering), in doing montage of videos. I’m skeptical about prompt engineering but your criticism here is as same as painters criticizing photographers: “they just press the button”.

created with prompting can look technically competent (e.g. faking an oil painting) but not be technically competent.

I used to thing along this line too, but later I realized that this is not an argument in any favor. Look at like any professional reviewing let’s say old movies. Thousands of errors - costumes of wrong epoch, or made wrong way, or worn wrong way. Wrong guns, wrong ammo etc etc etc. I saw some pro criticising ai generated picture of a woman on a horse, and it was about same - the things used to steer the horse are like upside down, some other things don’t make sense. And then it clicked to me - it doesn’t matter. It isn’t unique to ai. Humans did same stuff forever. As long as result is enjoyable, it’s fine.

and ai art can be good. What is “good” here? Aesthetically pleasing? Then sure, that’s a subjective matter of opinion. Even the yuckiest of gore can be aesthetically pleasing to the right person. Cronenberg has a cult following for a reason.

This is strawman and arguing in bad faith by subtly associating my position with liking gore etc. On first albums of Metallica you almost can hear how they are learning and getting better (except drummer). Yes, if it’s pleasing enough people and bringing joy to their life then it’s ok. It doesn’t matter is it ai or human. Again, there are many cases in music when apparently the solos weren’t played by artists but by uncredited session musicians. Is it slop? Musician acted as tool here.

Again, what is “great” here? Does it mean you like it?

Fans like it. Not only me. It brings new fans or even casuals may enjoy it

Personally I believe “greatness” has to stand the test of time at least for a few decades, so we may never know for sure.

You do you. It’s fine.

I do highly doubt your scenario, though. Why would an old star be interested in generating a simulacrum of their old music without doing it themselves? Apart from a shameless cash grab, that is.

Why Metallica does new albums? They already have enough super hits, that stood test of time even By your definition (decades) to not care. Why other bands do the same?

—-

In very short. To me it feels that there is an attempt to steer into public conscience that

    Ai = slop

    Human Slop = Ai slop = slop

Agree. I didn’t say bad. I said that the adjectives that people use to describe ai slop are as applicable to human creations as to ai.

There could be lazy, uninspired but technically competent as ai art (my pet peeve is many “instrumental guitar albums” that are just pentatonic scale and standard licks in all shapes and forms) and ai art can be good.

I will say even more. I’m sure that soon we will get new albums from old stars (like let’s say) that will be great. Critics will be in ave “triumphant return to old form” and everybody will avoid looking in the eyes and say the truth about how they were able to write new good songs, given that they weren’t able to do it in like decades.

Nah, you’re not the person who decides that. Denied.

Me an intellectual is not like the other girls.

The thing is that there is already enough ai content that is not lacking in effort, quality, meaning too.

I clearly see talented author who just didn’t had chops or resources previously to realize his vision, and now he can and I can enjoy it.

At the same time I probably feel and define slop slightly differently, for myself.

In my birth city there was a street that was closed every weekend for art sellings. You walk about 1km (or less), and there are tables with sculpitures, paintings, crafts etc. In the beginning it’s fun, but after some time (and especially after several visits) you see how repetitive and formulaic it is. Somebody chooses kittens and draws 100s of things with them, somebody chooses nature etc etc etc. I didn’t even know the word slop then, but looking back - it was it.

After watching Bob Ross (and I love the guy) it’s clear that many “creators” were producing slop that is technically similar to what Bob Ross was teaching. Did Bob Ross produced slop? No. Do people who just reuse same approach over and over again (here is how we will paint the tree by using this then than brush) produce slop? In my book - yes. And it’s fine, if they or somebody else enjoy it. I don’t judge them and I don’t judge people who use and enjoy ai.

For me art’s purpose is to invoke some emotion in person, experiencing the art. The way how art is produced is secondary.

You can have buckethead who does music, and you can have someone (even highly technical, with great timing, control, mechanical chops) who “produces song” while sitting on a toilet and an “instrumental album” in a day, by running pentatonic scale all over again. And this is the slop for me. And it has nothing to do with ai.

I love your rant.

The writing is on the wall for next development.

“For the foreseeable future, the Go team will stop pursuing syntactic language changes for error handling. We will also close all open and incoming proposals that concern themselves primarily with the syntax of error handling, without further investigation.”

Also the almost industrial score music machines: trailer music, like two steps from hell, even Zimmer. Those are also can be considered as slop, even worse - highly formulaic, almost standard (YouTube “heroic music chord progression”). And those were written by humans