I actually wouldn’t enjoy talking to most people at work, because that would involve going there instead of doing it from the computer where I already am

I’m not young

I’m a childless man and FUCK that, the office isn’t my social scene. I don’t care to drive in there just to talk to the same people in person. ZERO point in doing that. We have meetings electronically and that’s more than enough.

For this to make sense AI has to replace product-oriented roles too. Some C-level person says “make products go brrrrrr” and it does everything

Have you ever played a 3D game

Most places don’t have all good system analysts.

I use it almost every day, and most of those days, it says something incorrect. That’s okay for my purposes because I can plainly see that it’s incorrect. I’m using it as an assistant, and I’m the one who is deciding whether to take its not-always-reliable advice.

I would HARDLY contemplate turning it loose to handle things unsupervised. It just isn’t that good, or even close.

These CEOs and others who are trying to replace CSRs are caught up in the hype from Eric Schmidt and others who proclaim “no programmers in 4 months” and similar. Well, he said that about 2 months ago and, yeah, nah. Nah.

If that day comes, it won’t be soon, and it’ll take many, many small, hard-won advancements. As they say, there is no free lunch in AI.

If you don’t play chess, the Atari is probably going to beat you as well.

LLMs are only good at things to the extent that they have been well-trained in the relevant areas. Not just learning to predict text string sequences, but reinforcement learning after that, where a human or some other agent says “this answer is better than that one” enough times in enough of the right contexts. It mimics the way humans learn, which is through repeated and diverse exposure.

If they set up a system to train it against some chess program, or (much simpler) simply gave it a tool call, it would do much better. Tool calling already exists and would be by far the easiest way.

It could also be instructed to write a chess solver program and then run it, at which point it would be on par with the Atari, but it wouldn’t compete well with a serious chess solver.

That’s just impolite.

WTF does the author think reasoning is

seems legit

they seem to be walking that back somewhat, moving it to its own tab.

is this some kind of furry porn CDN

le hon hon hon!!! je veux a l’vpn en plús!!!

maybe we should ban all the vices you don’t partake of but leave the rest intact

…in Singapore…

I think it would be best if that’s a user setting, like dark mode. It would obviously be a popular setting to adjust. If they don’t do that, there will doubtless be grease monkey and other scripts to hide it.

I wasn’t trolling

I like it

Many people who are in a position to write opaque jargon lack the perspective that would be required to explain it to a person who isn’t already very well-versed. Math articles are often like that, which doesn’t surprise me. I’ve had a few math professors who appeared completely unable to understand how to explain the subject to anyone who wasn’t already good at it. I had to drop their classes and try my luck with others.

I feel like a few of them are in this thread!