people have been making some version of this comment for the past three years, and the only thing that has changes is that you keep adding capabilities.
2 years ago people were saying it was purely autocomplete and enhanced google.
AI bears just continue to eat shit year after year and keep pretending they didnt say that AI would never be capable of what its currently capable of.
i'll bite. the uses for llms i've described are about what i've been using them for since chatgpt 3o. they've absolutely gotten better since then but i still find them to be very poor replacements for humans, esp in regards to architectural direction. they're very useful assistants tho
it actually insane that this sort of thing is tolerated. Its a culture thing and frankly just rude. My org is pretty AI-pilled and this type of behavior will just not fly. I need to be assured im talking to a human who is using their brain.
If I paste something from an AI into chat, I always identify it as such by saying something like "my claude instance says this:". I also don't blindly copy paste from it, I always read it first and usually edit it for brevity or tone. Feel like this should be the absolute minimum for sending AI content to a person.
Even that is pretty useless because we have no idea what context "your Claude instance" has. All you're doing is dressing up some bullshit to look authoritative.
When I started my PhD I was already really good at typesetting with LaTeX. I started to bring in fully typeset works in progress for my supervisor to read through. These proofs often had fatal flaws. He asked me to stop typesetting until after the work had been verified because it looked too convincingly correct due to being typeset.
That was about 15 years ago but I've never forgotten it. Drafts should look like drafts. Scrappy work and proofs of concept should look as such. Stop fucking with people by making your bullshit, scrappy ideas look legit. Progress is a cooperative effort. It's not about trying to make people say yes.
Can confirm. I saw some fresh out of college colleagues do this in text docs. Al nice markup, but the text content was very drafty. I always sent them back to keep the format concept-y if you are tuning the text first.
There’s people who use AI to solve problems, and then there’s people who have completely offloaded all of their thinking to LLMs. I have a manager who when asked a question won’t think even for a moment about it and will just paste paragraphs of AI generated text back.
Most big tech CEOs are people that only "succeeded" due to have an unregulated monopoly or picking the right lotto ticket and not due to any innate above average intelligence. Go look at the 100s of billions in wasted capital and tell me who benefitted from such waste while workers + children suffer from lack of medical care.
You honestly expect this trajectory to continue unabated?
> You honestly expect this trajectory to continue unabated?
Knowing humanity's history, yes. Not sure we're ever going to see a second French Revolution. People are pacified and are not rioting. And they really should. Most of us are kind of privileged. I know people out there who are barely holding on and the recent fuel + food price increases might push them over the edge to actual poverty.
??? the reason for every single layoff in the history of the world is to lower expenses, and that is obvious to everyone. not actually sure what other kind of explanation would satisfy you.
But why is lowering expenses now necessary? If we believed the press releases, it’s because AI blah blah. I’m suggesting that some legal requirement for being truthful about the reason would be beneficial.
What benefit would it truly provide? Companies would simply say they need to cut costs to maximize shareholder value, which is no different than what happened here.
Well, generally speaking I think it’s a better world if corporations are forced to not lie to people.
Presumably investors and those shorting the company would benefit from more accurate information about a company. So the market as a whole would be healthier and less prone to inflationary claims.
I also don’t think that excuse would really hold up under scrutiny: “we fired 14% of our workforce to maximize shareholder value” isn’t exactly a straightforward answer. Right now the answer seems to be latching onto whatever’s trendy and blaming the layoffs on that.
If there is an expectation that reasons will be investigated, then I think you’d just get more accurate information in the market, tldr.
"Our product is stupid and probably won't sell despite the mountains of bullshit I've spewed over the last couple of years and we need to pivot so ...."
"We took out some huge debt and need to pay it off asap so ...."
"I made a strategic mistake, so ...."
"I'm hoping to get a huge rise in the stock price and make money off it somehow so ...."
I'm just joking but I think the point is that the smug person doing the firing wants to make themselves look good rather than bad and HAS to try to make the company look good to shareholders even if it's not.
And yeah, there's crossover but they're not 1 to 1. At the same time, if a company is taking two people of equal position and firing one, or keeping the other, the honesty in how they came to that conclusion through transparency has value. Was the decision one of seniority? Performance? Geographical relevance? Was it favoritism masked in another reason? The person receiving the pink slip deserves to know the truth, especially in cases where legal matters could be of question where a company may say one thing, but be acting on another.
you think the deepest mysteries of reality and the universe should just reveal themselves because we have a couple thousand smart people working on it for... 10 years?
Maybe, but this is also a company whose parent organization is worth a trillion+ dollars that have monopolies in multiple verticals. I know American corpos hate the idea of protecting the commons and would rather fuck it raw to fulfill their carnal urge for profit, but you know there are some public goods and services worth fulfilling for a highly productive industry.
Maybe the government should nationalize GitHub at this point as it is absolutely critical for US infrastructure and MSFT has shown to be a terrible steward for the public.
arc agi isnt testing a models ability to store files and code things. its testings its ability to reason through puzzles given the same information as a human
But that's the thing, as a human faced with a problem I'd often say "Sure, just let me get a pen, some paper and a calculator". Why shouldn't we make it easy for AIs to use their tools of choice?
if you tested my ability to reason and you gave me some challenging problems that involved arithmetic, it might be a better test if you gave me a scratch pad so I don't mess up the reasoning parts by failing arithmetic.
part of the issue with Covid is that it was highly state dependent so everyone is talking past each other and accusing people of gaslighting and memory holing stuff.
if you lived in Texas, many people would agree with your assessment. I lived in Massachusetts and I can tell you that was not at all my experience. All communal venues including the beach???? were shut down. there was extreme social pressure to never step outside. I know this sounds like a made up story, but i literally had friends accuse me of killing their grandmother because I as a healthy 24 year old wanted to go to a concert AFTER vaccines were available.
If you lived in a primarily liberal culture, the authoritarianism, virtue signaling and hypocrisy were completely insane.
my little brother didnt get a senior year of highschool or freshman year of college, and yet people like you claim the only thing that happened was people didnt want to put a piece of cloth over their mouths. Its extremely disingenuous and i can tell you my brother has not been the same since covid.
Sure, correlation does not imply causation, but correlations do imply associations.
> Its extremely disingenuous
It is also extremely privileged and entitled. More Americans died from Covid in a few years than the sum of US solider deaths in all US wars combined from 1776-2026.
> Perhaps so, but in 2020-2023, it appears that the harsh imposition of Massachusetts was not in vain when compared to states like Texas, for example.
if youll notice, the difference in death rates only diverges in 2021. in 2020, both states were the same color. this is because the only thing that actually solved covid was vaccines, and republicans were dumb as shit to think the vaccines didnt work.
> It is also extremely privileged and entitled. More Americans died from Covid in a few years than the sum of US solider deaths in all US wars combined from 1776-2026.
this is a complete non-sequiter to the thing i was calling disingenuous. it is disingenuous to say that the people who had issues with the US policy response to covid was simply that they were whiny babies who wouldnt wear a mask. My brother literally had 2 of the most important years of his childhood completely ruined.
besides the fact that this comparison is so dumb on so many levels, (like comparing any death toll to number of 9/11's a day), yes it is tragic that so many people died of covid. But again, the primary failure there was people not getting the vaccine.
reply