It does feel like we're in a simulation doesn't it? Only a corporation running a simulation can fuck things up as much as they are today.
Entropy is the default state; order and good outcomes are unnatural and require significant energy and focus to impose.
It is the last phase of getting the technology to maturity. Problems are to be expected, but they will be solved. And none of these are severe, these are nuisances. Which still means they have to be fixed, but it is entirely possible to do so.
For example, how to wake people up with good reliability is understood, they just need to do it. Demo: https://www.youtube.com/shorts...
Maybe this is just American companies ignoring what the rest of the world does and already has figured out. Would not be the forst time.
This is a technological limitation. You cannot really "tag" things in an LLM with the data that particular thing was trained by. LLMs sort of "mash" everything together.
The possible ways this can go are really that either you will be able to run a reasonable LLM on your local computer in a few years, or the big LLM offers will either go away or get completely enshittified because they are too expensive to run. Currently it looks like it will be the 2nd thing.
You push a lie. Reality has a left wing bias, because the right is typically in denial of reality. I get that your tiny mind is not capable of understanding that.
For any questions regarding concrete politics, society, history and some others. And it makes these tools, again, expert-only.
No argument about the accomplishments of Greg HK, but first, Linux has already succeeded. And second, most people will struggle with Rust. It is just too complex for the average kernel contributor. It also does not, as Linus has pointed out, prevent logic errors.
I think you are not quite clear on what mental level average people operate
Yes, pretty much. One of my first experiences with ChatGPT was that I asked something, then I asked for sources. It did a web-search and failed. Completely unusable. That Google tries to sort-of "verify" LLM answers with results from search is a good thing. But it really does not work that well.
You know, a really good conventional search engine may actually beat LLM search.
Does not need to be useful? I can write a Perl script that can do arbitrary much code in a few hours! May even compile...
"I wonder if" - now that was an honest mistake.
Are you sure you're not an LLM?
The fact that LLMs are tripping over themselves trying to be "Honest"
I think this is the result of their trainers trying to reduce hallucination. And hallucination *has* been reduced, so it's probably been largely successful, but it has produced this era of versions that are concerned about honesty, that claims of honesty or apologies for lack or honesty, are pervasive in their output.
But this is basic, basic, basic stuff. It's been committing things to git ever since it was built, and yet, it keeps tripping over itself.
My iron rule is that Claude is not allowed to modify git state, not even to stage or unstage, and definitely not to commit. As long as that rule is followed, any mistakes can be cleaned up easily.
They would certainly like it to be acceptable to their customers. But I think the real danger to them is worse: When the hype collapses, they are screwed. But they cannot deny this happened. So they are signaling "we can and will do better", even when that is a complete lie. Reminds me of MS stating "security is out highest priority" when they found out in 2023 that all (!) of Exchange Online had been compromised in 2021. Of course, they continued their crappy ways and had some more severe cloud compromises. Many people seem to be satisfied with this type of empty promise, so they continue to be used.
Well, if you do not care about result quality, it is usually easy to get productive. Just that the productivity coming out of things will be zero or often negative in this case.
"I've finally learned what `upward compatible' means. It means we get to keep all our old mistakes." -- Dennie van Tassel
