Predicting the future isn't easy.

The .com bubble was pretty much "Oh hey, computers have been around for a while and they're great, now the internet is arriving so let's make sure we don't miss out. Let's pump all of the money into any company that has a web page or might consider making one, in case they conquer the internet."

LLMs feel to me more like, "Oh hey, someone added an LCD screen to a toaster and they claim next year they'll make the airline industry irrelevant, let's put all of the money into toaster factories!"

That doesn't mean LLMs will have no place where they're useful. But, barring a new breakthrough, it's hard to see how what is in essence a "pick next word" algorithm might turn out e.g. a new Google.

But, as mentioned, predicting the future isn't easy. Perhaps I'll look like a luddite in a few years time. Then again, my track record of greeting 3D movies with "meh" every time they roll back into fashion, is pretty darn good. :p

There are ten links in this summary. What is the method by which you decide the first sentence of the third link is the one that makes you decide whether to keep reading or not?

This is starting to look like bad faith argumentation to me. Remember that the premise here was using LLMs as assistants for code review, not code production. Decent coding assistant LLMs that can be run locally already exists, and have for years. They're not as good as full size models running in data centers, of course, but they're also not useless. As long as they are able to catch _some_ security issues, at an acceptable signal to noise ratio, they offer value in freeing up reviewer brain bandwidth to focus on other issues.

The problem arises when people buy into the "these things are so brilliant" hype and figure they're a silver bullet for everything. They're definitely not. They have a very niche usage area, but within that they can be useful. And with models now existing on millions of computers around the world, for languages that are not going out of fashion any time soon, and with people making old mistakes all the time, I don't see that vanishing anytime soon even if big tech folds. We'll just have to wait to see how it all pans out.

Based on the summary, to me the use of "upstream" indicates "maintainers". As in the people responsible for approving and merging.

I'm not sure the business numbers are all that important when it comes to code. We already have them trained on _a lot_ of code, and since they're more focused they can be smaller without being useless compared to the full size ones. If we can run them locally on a single GPU, it doesn't go away when the bubble pops and the big players stop throwing away money.

As with any tool, they need to be used where they actually offer value. Which is definitely not to architect solutions, but to sanity check smaller chunks of code. Assuming false positives can be kept to a minimum, that is real value even if all they do is save some time in catching a limited set of issues.

I've heard him talk about that as well, so he seems well aware of it. Of course, that doesn't automatically mean he'll be brilliant at actually doing it himself. It's one thing to talk about other projects in hindsight, something quite different when doing it yourself.

Personally, I'm cautiously optimistic.

He's stated they did not listen to his input on that show, so unless he's lying about that it shouldn't be much of an indicator. Of course, it could also be his input was even worse than the choices they went with. I find that unlikely, but it's at least a possibility.

Well, having written that I then came across Bradon stating he'll be writing the screenplay for Mistborn himself. So let's hope he's up to the task after all.

I've listened to some of Sanderson's podcasts and I think he's been pretty open about how he does not see himself as a screen writer. My impression is that he wants creative control to prevent poor decisions, like e.g. an exec turning allomancy from a system with built-in constraints, to "whatever we think would be a cool thing in this scene." Or, considering Foundation, using the novels as nothing more than vague inspiration.

But, time will tell.

You know what they say about "in matters of taste.."

Sanderson is huge. People know about him and buy his books in droves. I can't even figure out which Hamilton you are referring to.

I get a few search results for that name and fantasy, but no one that seems to stand out. The top search result I got was a fantasy football news site. Compare that to a search for Sanderson and fantasy, where every hit on the first page was the Sanderson in question. If I add the word author, the top result is an urban fantasy vampire romance author, which I'm guessing isn't who you're thinking of, and is a genre the TV studios seems to not be into these days. A bit further down is a Duncan M. Hamilton, who looks like a more likely fit, but he doesn't seem to be talked about much. I searched for his name and there was basically no chatter about him. No thread on preferred reading order or anything else that usually pops up. Again, compare that to Sanderson's presence on social media. People talk about his stuff pretty much everywhere.

If you were a TV exec and was looking for something to adapt, which of those two options to you figure you'd pick? The one people not even into the genre has often heard the name of, or the one even someone interested in the genre can't quite identify when trying? Hamilton might be the greatest fantasy author of this generation, but name recognition is a pretty big deal in these decisions. Currently, it seems like a stretch to imagine a TV exec would even know Hamilton exists, whereas Sanderson is extremely well known and has been actively working his way into that side of the industry for many years now.

You might well be right and we're all missing out, but from a TV exec's perspective, Sanderson is obviously the right choice at the moment.

I'm not saying no to alcohol, or no to driving. I'm saying no to the combination of alcohol and driving.

This might surprise you, but it is possible to eat a meal without drinking alcohol. People do it all the time. It's also entirely possible to travel to and from a restaurant or a bar without operating a vehicle, if you do want to enjoy alcohol. It might be less convenient, but it sure as heck beats running someone over on the way home because you had just one drink too many to be able to brake in time.

Not drinking and driving isn't some insurmountable obstacle. It's incredibly simple. If you feel otherwise, you might have an alcohol problem.

The only one that makes sense: if you're going to drive, you don't drink. Period. Reaction times can be measurably slower as low as 0.02. Drinking alcohol and then driving is not some human right that it makes sense to legislate based on people that have high tolerance. It's extremely easy to keep track of "have had a drink/have not had a drink", whereas it makes no sense to have people ingest a substance known to reduce judgement, then asking them to judge whether they are impaired or not.

The only thing that makes sense is to effectively just not allow alcohol and driving to co-exist at all, legally and culturally. I'm trying to play devil's advocate and think of good arguments for the opposite, but I'm having a real hard time. "But, I really like wine with dinner, " or "but, if you can't even have a drink or two, alcoholics won't be able to drive, " is about the best I can come up with. Neither seem like terribly strong arguments. And that comes from someone who very much identifies with the first of the two. Driving is a privilege that just isn't compatible with alcohol.

IMO, making drunk driving illegal, would be a good start.

The US legal limit is so high that you can drive drunk, legally. Just not really, really, drunk. Telling people they can drink until their judgment is getting quite impaired, but then stop if they're going to drive, is not a great way to cultivate a "don't drink and drive" culture.

As a contrast, the US legal limit is _four times_ what is where I live. Here, driving at the US legal limit would mean a mandatory prison sentence, loss of license for a minimum of 12 months, and 1.5 times your monthly salary as a fine.

nt

I honestly thought they changed to purely reality content decades ago. If these "actual Music TV" channels were still available where I live, they seem to have been hiding well. I would be sad, if I didn't hold my MTV lament some time around the turn of the millennium. Still, a belated toast from my teenage self for the after midnight version of Poison.