incrudible

I read it more as pointing out the inevitable and accepting the implications. You can not call it the result of poor practice when every business beyond a certain size has this problem.

Perhaps the problem could be mitigated by keeping the company itself small, but that has nothing to do with programming anymore.

The good RISC-V designs are not free though and the free ones are not good. MCUs are not a category of computer to draw lessons from for the broader market.

In the age of LLMs we can assume that any code was generated by an LLM unless noted otherwise, so I think it is fair to not point out the use of LLMs. However, words like hand built should be reserved for the instances where the code was actually written unassisted. Reading all the code means nothing, there is no such thing as code that was written as if you had written it, unless you have written it.

It is funny that people now instinctively think of AI when encountering slop, as if the slop that the AI produces was not deeply informed by the slop it trained on. Plus, the quality bar on the web has always been low, masking the true capability of LLMs.

This is, again, absurd. According to the definition that a doctor is a person performing witchcraft, do you sincerely believe that a person performing witchcraft is a doctor? Do you sincerely believe that a true statement is true?

Let me then rephrase the question: Do you reject the definition that a doctor is anyone who proclaims himself to be a doctor? This is, again, an absurd definition of what a doctor, a woman, or really anything could be.

So let me broaden it: Not only do I reject this type of definition for doctors or for women, I reject any such circular definition as absurd. You don't?

You initially claimed that it doesn't matter what "women" means when you ask, "Do you sincerely believe that a person becomes a woman simply by self-declaring it?"

No, I said it doesn't matter to to the point I am making what I believe, except that I reject that particular definition, because it is absurd on its face. I may or may not reject any number of other definitions of "woman", it's besides the point.

As an analogy (futile, I know): There are many definitions of what a "doctor" could be. For example, I can accept the definition that "a doctor is someone has been licensed to practice medicine". I can't accept the definition that "a doctor is anyone who self-identifies as a doctor".

Of course, according to the definition that "a doctor is anyone who self-identifies a doctor", someone who self-identifies as a doctor is a doctor. It's obviously true and obviously absurd.

You should join the tautology club.

You're making claims about these laws

No, I'm making the claim that any such law conflicts with the position that "the state should stay out of it", obviously. And since you are not even the person supposedly holding that position, I don't even know where you're trying get here.

You asked me this: "So you reject laws that require people to affirm my gender based on nothing but my self identification?"

I did not. I asked CamperBob2 that, who presumably holds the position that "the government should stay out of it". So unless that is your alt, I think you're missing the point and barking up the wrong tree.

As I have pointed out above, the word "woman" has different definitions. So if you ask me whether I believe that "a person becomes a woman simply by self-declaring it", then the answer is yes for some definitions of the term, and no for others, like I already explained to you.

"A woman is any person who self-identifies as a woman" is the definition that started this whole subthread, and a self-referential one at that. The corollary of that definition is that anyone gets to be a woman by simply declaring it. So, according to the definition that a woman is anyone who says they're a woman, anyone who says they're a woman is a woman. That's a tautology, so it's obviously true. Check mate, athiests.

You're still not clarifying what you're actually saying, so I would level the same accusation against you.

What clarification do you need? You can pick any law related to gender identity, and that by definition violates the principle of having the "government stay out of it". And I'm not trying to debate the merits of any such law, I'm trying to get to admit the person in question that they don't actually hold the belief that the government "should stay out of it".

It would be helpful if you could be more specific.

No, because it actually doesn't matter the point, as outlined above. Again, I'm not interested in a debate on the merits of any such law.

So if your tactic is to "put me on the spot", I would encourage you to apply this to yourself and genuinely consider what you actually believe, and why you believe it.

You expend a lot of words dodging a simple question: Do you sincerely believe that a person becomes a woman simply by self-declaring it? I don't believe this. I don't think you believe this.

I'm not asking you to define what makes a woman. It doesn't matter to the point what you or I believe makes a woman, except the distinction that it is (or isn't) as simple as declaring it.

There's also money in being an engineer. If he makes so much more money as YouTube rage farmer, then I'd be surprised, but it still wouldn't change my perception of it being degrading work, harmful to his credibility and probably harmful to his mental health too.

You are attempting the same tactic as the other guy: Diversion.

The question was: Do you actually believe that any person becomes a woman simply by self-identification?

The other guy refused to answer, instead proclaiming "the government should stay out of it". Fair, but there are various laws that are being campaigned for, which - desirable as they may be - would be off-limits if you actually believed the government should "stay out of it".

My tactic is to put you on the spot. My suspicion is that neither of you actually hold either of these beliefs. You're not principled in this regard, you merely want to signal that you're "good people", or something along those lines. That is, you're making it easy for yourselves by being disingeneous.

Is that so? So you reject laws that require people to affirm my gender based on nothing but my self identification? That is a right wing position in current year.

This has nothing to do with the belief that a woman is simply someone who identifies as a woman. According to this belief, the following statement is sufficient to become a woman:

I am a woman.

I think this belief is absurd prima facie and would have been recognized as such by virtually anyone, say, ten years ago.

I am not a woman.

Furthermore, I do not believe that you believe I have been a woman while typing out that sentence in the middle. Do you?

DeArrow gives a YouTube page with rageslop that has been marked as rageslop. I do not need an addon to determine that, I need a feed that does not serve it to me in the first place, and that means curating my feed by rejecting certain videos and channels.

And this goes back to my point, if you are a competent engineer, why are you spending time producing rageslop for money, rather than, you know, doing the engineering.

LLMs will tell you, without qualification (like “according to some school of thought”) that a woman is “any person that identifies as a woman”, which is, to say the least, deeply politically biased by recent trends.

Casey (on his channels) does not do the clickbait thing, which makes all the difference. You can either maintain integrity and credibility or you can make brainrot shockface “it is over” content. There is no middle ground.

Maybe you are desensitized to it, but I have a carefully curated YouTube and I know that it can be a completely different platform experience if you reject with prejudice any such content.

If you are a competent engineer already why do you need to create self demeaning clickbait content on YouTube? Narcissism? I aggressively block any such content, because if you click on any of it, you easily get sent down the YouTube spiral of crap.

And yet, they are highly unprofitable. Yes, people pay for the API because it's a frontier model, but it's a frontier model because of billions of capex that are (so far) not getting recouped. And if they stopped the capex on new frontier models, that API revenue would walk off to whoever else does. If, at some point, the entire industry decides to stop burning money and start squeezing customers, that will be the test of which business models actually survive, and in that scenario I am bullish on scrappier shops that can't possible compete on all fronts now.

I build them as separate entry points. And to be clear, esbuild doesn't do everything for me, but the solution is bespoke script, not the whole of something like Vite.

"Unmaintanable" by who? Vite is on its n-th major revision, yet as a user none of my pain points have been addressed and god-knows-what has been added. If that's "maintenance", I don't want it, because what I need out of Vite is trivially replaced. It's the same for most other dependencies. I need a particularly problem solved, but along with a dependency come the authors who, having solved the problem, continue to invent new problems, because they are emotionally invested in their work. I don't begrudge that, but there is a conflict of interest here.

Big AI labs aren't making money. They're buying revenue. Sure, the product is amazing, but it wouldn't be as amazing if offered at cost - which is exactly where "good enough" smaller and specialized models will survive.

Raising prices is not a tail risk, anything a local LLM setup can do for you can be done by any cloud provider, with the same capex as yours (or less), there is no moat here, so it is highy price competitive and will remain so. If you want to speculate on hardware shortages, that is a different business altogether and you need no janky garage setup to profit.

I have removed vite because dev build and reload is noticable slower than just esbuild and browser refresh. Vite does nothing for me that an LLM can not just trivially rebuild in a bespoke manner.

YMMV

For the coordinator or judge above them I would put myself

You will not be able to keep up with the sheer volume, or alternatively you're never gonna ingest as much information as the LLM, so you're gonna miss out. Input tokens are relatively cheap.

Think of yourself as the CTO, they can't possibly make a judgement call on every detail, but an LLM can, and if you're gonna let an LLM do that, might as well go with frontier, and if you're not gonna let an LLM do that, you're stuck with whatever the lower-tier LLMs provided you with.

That doesn't mean you shouldn't read or judge the code at all, but you're still gonna want to use the LLM as the lever.

As the problem becomes complex, you can't remember all the requirements, period.

I think the idea that code should last decades is now questionable, if not problematic. If we can now produce code at 10x the rate, that means we can have 10x more code (probably not desirable) or we can have 10x as many revisions. Whoever inherits the code can have it rewritten to their liking and understanding. Nothing helps better in understanding a system than to rebuild it, even if just by handholding an LLM.

You need to train independently and merge rarely. The problem is the merge step. Weights are too entangled, you are not going to get an improvement commensurate to the effort. Otherwise, everyone would do it. It is an open research problem.

As I replied to a child comment - this is a nice idea that just isn't tenable in reality. AI hardware isn't just hilariously faster than consumer GPUs, it's also hilariously more power-efficient and has hilariously better connectivity. Every one of these dimensions kills the idea.

The first part is not really true though, the chips are not that much faster, the DRAM is not that much faster, and in aggregate it does not matter because there is just so much more consumer hardware out there (although perhaps that is changing as supply shifts toward datacenters).

The interconnect and data locality is the problem. If you could train it like e.g. you can render a scene with monte carlo ray tracing, any result from any node could be merged with any other and the combined result would have converged closer to the limit. I am sure research in that direction exists, it just has not proven effective within the scales it has been attempted.

In large projects there is always a risk, if not an inevitability, that a code base becomes unmaintanable by some definition. AI surfaces this faster, but also AI lowers the cost of testing and refactoring. AI gives a linear multiplier in producing solutions, but complexity gives a quadratic increase in problems. The art of producing software has always been in choosing what not to do.

It is a massive difference. I do not like magic compilers. The JSX transform is trivial and not even necessary, just create a factory function and React.createElement becomes arguably more readable, just not HTML like.