jj4211 @ jj4211 @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

1,766

Joined

2 yr. ago

To be fair, a decent chunk of coding is stupid boilerplate/minutia that varies environment to environment, language to language, library to library.

So LLM can do some code completion, filling out a bunch of boilerplate that is blatantly obvious, generating the redundant text mandated by certain patterns, and keeping straight details between languages like "does this language want join as a method on a list with a string argument, or vice versa?"

Problem is this can be sometimes more annoying than it's worth, as miscompletions are annoying.

GPTs which claim to use a stockfish API

Then the actual chess isn't LLM. If you are going stockfish, then the LLM doesn't add anything, stockfish is doing everything.

The whole point is the marketing rage is that LLMs can do all kinds of stuff, doubling down on this with the branding of some approaches as "reasoning" models, which are roughly "similar to 'pre-reasoning', but forcing use of more tokens on disposable intermediate generation steps". With this facet of LLM marketing, the promise would be that the LLM can "reason" itself through a chess game without particular enablement. In practice, people trying to feed in gobs of chess data to an LLM end up with an LLM that doesn't even comply to the rules of the game, let alone provide reasonable competitive responses to an oppone.

I'm so glad that the one that did win ended the genocide, got us universal healthcare, and decreased military spending... oh wait....

I feel like there isn't an assertion that the police would act out from ignorance of the law, but just how they operate. If anything the enhanced legal awareness may embolden them to know how far they can push the line and get away with it.

More than the legal awareness or lack thereof, there's the nature of the careers. American police day to day consider everyone around them to have the capacity to become a threat. The national guard certainly will have training, but most of their actual job experience on average has been devoid of actual potential threats.

At least, there's the hope this is true, to offset the rather dire context of federal authority mobilizing military within a state against the will of that state..

To be fair those incidents aren't inconsistent with his hopes, that the national guard may be more restrained than the police forces that did those actions.

Police have spent an entire career actively considering the civilian population potential enemies at all times, with less vetting and training than you'd hope they should have.

National Guardsmen have access to equipment and training, but their careers are less likely to have been antagonistic to civilian populations.

This may be an overly optimistic viewpoint, but it's not one disproved by those incidents just yet.

Without being explicit with well researched material, then the marketing presentation gets to stand largely unopposed.

So this is good even if most experts in the field consider it an obvious result.

Particularly to counter some more baseless marketing assertions about the nature of the technology.

And that's pretty damn useful, but obnoxious to have expectations wildly set incorrectly.

incorrect behavior that doesn’t even have the courtesy to throw an actual error.

To be fair, this can be said of C. A C executable only really forces a crash out when you royally screw up beyond the bounds of your memory. Otherwise functions just return a negative value and calling code that never bothers to check just keep on going.

Golang is similar, slightly mitigated that if you are assigning any return value from a function, you must also explicitly receive an error and you know full well that you are being lazy if you don't handle it. Well unless you use a panic/recover scheme but golang community will skewer you alive for casually suggesting that and certainly third party libraries aren't going to do it that way.

Could I write a compiler in C that does this check on a piece of Rust code?

Well yes, but that code has to be written in Rust. The human has to follow rules to give the compiler a chance to check things.

C is so simplictic, that if I can write a piece of functionality in C, I must understand its inner workings fully. Not just how to use the feature, but how the feature works under the hood.

I don't think that's particularly more true of C than Rust or even Golang. In C you are frequently making function calls anyway for the real fun stuff. If you ever compile a "simplistic" chunk of C code that you think is obvious how it would compile to assembly and you open up the assembly output, you are likely to be very surprised with what the compiler chose to do. I've seen some professional C developers that never actually had a reason to fully understand how the stack works, since C abstracts that away and the implications of the stack don't matter until you exceed some limitations.

Technically any language runtime can end in a segmentation fault.

For some languages, in principle this shouldn't be possible, but the runtimes can have bugs and/or you are calling libraries that do some native code at some point.

I think we all can get a metaphor, but when someone lives a super safe and convenient life keeping they're head low even in the face of some things with sticking your neck out over.. and then wears a cross to claim they too carry a cross like Jesus just because they put on a little trinket...

That metaphor in context cheapens the concept. Particularly as the meaning is somewhat inverted. The "cross" was for people that went against authority. Now the cross is more aligned with following authority. The executionor may wear a cross while they definitely kill the person using anything but crucification.

I feel though like wearing a token cross in honor of being told to take up a more literal cross seems like paying lip service to a very serious call to action with very low actual stakes.

Like being told to stand up to the guns of an army to stand firm for justice and then wearing little rifle pendants instead claiming that means you look to live your life consistent with that principle even as you stay well away from actual fighting.

You may personally of course live your life consistent with the values and that is just a symbol, but it's broadly a symbol that has been cheapened by casual overuse, and to some extent corrupted by folks using it as a symbol of their alignment to God and implied divine authority granted by that association.

A difference exists in that those sentiments has less implications for daily life. People sharing spiritual speculation about the greater universe with the humility to recognize they have no way of knowing better than anyone else, fine.

I'm not bothered by the faith in something beyond what we can see in and out itself. But the bits where self asserted alignment to a silent but divine authority as a way to decide value and authority among people.. There's the problem.

I do not question the authority of someone's God, I question the authority of the people claiming that God agrees with them.

Yes, as long as you were on the side that benefits from success, it was better to leave things "simple" and not challenge the incorrect stuff out loud you aren't going to "well actually.." the "expert" if it risks your job and/or the wrong stuff isn't too important or too hard to overcome when the rubber meets the road.

Still, sitting in a room or otherwise being a party to a conversation where an executive is constantly being confidently incorrect and still praised as a smart expert likely making 7 figures is maddening.

I didn't generally mind this quite so much ..

Then someone just could calls me without even texting first... While I'm already in a meeting actively taking to someone else...

While I have not reviewed a lot of Musk speak, let alone armed with enough to credibly review his commentary, but based on my own field and "respected technical leaders" that interview with customers and the press, with broad acknowledgement that they really know their stuff...

Most of them I've known can sound very confident and credible while saying completely incorrect stuff. No one tries to correct them because them being actually correct doesn't add value and trying to fix that is more trouble than it's worth much of the time. The people paying attention don't know well enough to recognize they are wrong.. usually...

Upon occasion my company throws one of these "geniuses" at a customer that actually knows what they are doing. Then I got to see our executive basically try to gaslight the audience when they challenged his competency. The sales people has to last minute pull in the actual technical people to try to repair our image after the customer interacted with the executive..

Now one would think, clearly, after such an embarrassment, surely the company learned to field the actual technical experts to deal with technical questions... But no, for every smart customer that is turned off by that executive, there's 10 more clients that don't know any better and respond so much better to his baseless confidence than actual competent discussion. Also, those 10 suckers will also get suckered into more high margin stuff versus the smart customer, that will be really good at getting the most cost effective products, with low margin and skipping the pointless addions.

There are now headlights that can be "high" but block out portions of the beam directed at light sources like oncoming headlights. Can't have them in the US though.

Unfortunately, the ecosystem around github has evolved so that most folks centralize their testing and deployment code into being executed on github infrastructure. Frankly a perversion of the decentralized design of git.

Fortunately for my team, it doesn't matter because our process requires stuff that can't be done from github infrastructure anyway, so we have kept the automatic testing and deployment on premise even as github is the 'canonical' place for the code to live.

Just like the first go round...