never_inline

LinkedIn is that way.

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

How hard would it be to engineer a new Google Drive and Docs suite?

How hard would it be to create a new phone operating system?

And who has seen success with that? It's all theory now.

LLMs may actually drag our super-valuable tech industry back down to earth and commoditize everything we've ever built.

Because most of the tech that has been built was not super valuable at all. Linux, GCC, docker maybe. But your average SaaS was always a commodity.

https://lists.isocpp.org/std-proposals/att-0486/Reply_to_Zer...

Here's a paper by a non native English speaker. The lack of the formal style doesn't cause any issue. Preciseness is what matters.

Why does the visarga "echo" at the end of the verse? A mixed IAST - HK transliteration on the front page like "Bhāgavata-VāNi" does not inspire confidence either. Is it vibed?

Go has few issues with performance (lack of in-line union types, interface overuse, inefficient idioms reg. collections, some missed optimizations) but its seems plausible for a idiomatic Go program to outperform an idiomatic rust program in some situations.

Example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22336284

Maybe I am stupid to have to ask this, but what's the problem if a human gets vaccinated by accident?

It's fairly simple sans-serif text with some markdown formatting, eh?

With operator overloading you can provide same numeric operation interface to library types such as big integers. Sure, you can also define methods and make sure your primitive types also define those methods but now you have some confusions (like equals vs == in Java).

going forward with knowledge specialization becoming unnecessary and eventually unfeasible due to the triviality of AI making it not needed for a human being to study a hyper-niche subject

Did your philospophy degree not teach you to think "what could go wrong?".

DJ Bernstein seems to agree with you: https://blog.cr.yp.to/20240803-clang.html

For compilation?

the 1%

Nit, you're the 1%. The ones you're talking about are 0.001% or so.

This selects for desperation.

that's a real gap

Sure you gotta put some AI for the executives.

But there's nice stuff under performance and security.

Ctrl+F gemini returns only 2.

@dang change this clickbait headline. original title is " Android 17 is here". I suggest "Android 17 is here - Android Developers Blog" since its a dev focused post.

I find that most arguments are endlessly rehashed. I would be like if most AI related discussion limited to maximum 2 / 3 most important news per day.

I think articles this light on content should not be upvoted to front page.

There's no manufacturing sector to employ them if you displace them from agriculture. They'd be displaced into gig economy. This would just increase the population of a handful of metropolitan cities which are already congested. India should fix its cities first.

we cannot "pin" versions

you can? that's why go.sum exists. you can also use the replace directive for more advanced scenarios.

^F load-bearing

You must be using a really bad harness or just writing very vague prompts. 20 Million tokens is a lot.

Electricity is very predictable and not under control of one or two nations.

Yeah; I have a minimal vimrc with cursorline, wrap, line number, some other option to make arrow keys jump to next line from end. I set a different colorscheme on each machine when I have to deal with multiple machines. That's it.

I have thought about it.

Present iteration of LLMs are, despite what normies would believe, aren't optimised to provide correct solutions. They are optimized to __sound smart__.

This may be just an undesirable artifact of the RLHF process. But the end result is same. They try (?) too hard to sound smart.

Last generation LLM writing was too obvious in its soulless journalistic nature. But the current generation LLMs do all the following things to appear smart; From the lowest levels to highest level

- use clever writing styles and punchlines. Not X, it's a Y'ed Z. (Though it's not funny and makes no sense).

- Overstuff the technical terms, most often using a +. "Add a shim + iptables rule + signal handler".

- Over engineer the low level design. (Eg rather write a function to do some complex parsing when a way exists to avoid it altogether. Write tricky bash script and parse the output for what could be achieved by stdlib in few more lines).

- over engineer the code flow: this is rather because they're clueless and can't step back. But I have fun seeing the LLM come up with 4 5 levels of branching and then extract it into a function, whereas a human would step back and try to avoid the branching.

- over engineer the high level design: well your mistake is letting the word soup machine lead the design. It will add all and kitchen sink with need bullet points and + marks. Only a pleb not sufficiently educated in the matters of computer science will be impressed with such Markdown kitchen sink designs. It's fine to rely on LLM for brainstorming and discovering how to do A, B and C. But if you outsource the job of design, it's instincts (!) to sound maximally smart using bullet lists and + marks will kick in.

Or you know, you can architect around testability from the beginning, where multiple branches / instances of same application can run in the same cluster - in different namespaces.

I am fine with them training on my open source code (which is pretty bad but not the point, because they're providing the service for free). I will be super pissed if I pay for enterprise and they train on it though. I believe this is the opinion of majority programmers.

Gemini has a free tier for API but yeah just use chat.

That's a multimodal model with text output, I think GP is asking about image generators.

You underestimating the algorithmic complexity of such brute forcing, and the indirect cost of brittle code that's produced by inferior models

Krazam vindicated

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IU4ByUbDKNc

Dude, that sort of transmission is only applicable to the four vedas (and even they exist in rescensions, some have later insertions eg: Maitrayani samhita, and the meter is generally lost due to language shifts). When you say "Vedic" those are the texts which count. Rāmāyana and Mahabhārata are not really "vedic" nor subject to such accurate transmission rules.

So they exist in many rescensions across India each with their own edits and interpolations. Some attempt has been made to create "critical" editions by taking the intersection of existing manuscripts but since there's no expectation of fidelity in transmission, we will never know what the original stories were.

So you can get even the western indologists to agree the battle of 10 kings mentioned in Rigveda very likely happened, and a Vasishtha and a Vishwamitra and a Trasadasyu existed in real life. However the epics leave out or conflict in many details with the aforementioned Vedic texts. Eg: a shantanu finds mention in Rigveda, a Parikshit and Janamejaya are mentioned in later samhitas. However there's no mention of pāndavas, kāuravas or a grand scale war. Neither there is a mention of a vyāsa / krishna dvaipayana in vasishtha's lineage in the accurately transmitted texts. It's very difficult to take Mahābhārata as an accurate historical document.