> But I think it's wrong to assume most people are incapable of serious, thorough thinking
I never said otherwise. I said that many are incapable, not most
3,140 karma · joined January 18, 2022
I never said otherwise. I said that many are incapable, not most
In fact, almost the entire population after little sleep or on a bad day is likely to make mistakes while following your proposed scheme.
I haven’t worked in Rust codebases, but I have never worked in a Go codebase where a `panic` in such a location would make it through code review.
Is this normal in Rust?
nil is equivalent to the empty array, which is why the rest of the code works as it does.
Hard disagree. Go has its sharp corners, but they don’t even approach the complexity of the borrow checker of Rust alone, let alone all of the other complexity of the Rust ecosystem.
Doubt
LLMs are experts in generating junk. And generally terrible at anything novel. Classifying novel vs junk is a much harder problem.
Email is such an utter shitfest. Even tech-savvy people fall for phishing emails, what hope do normal people have.
I recommend people save URLs in their password managers, and get in the habit of auto-filling. That way, you’ll at least notice if you’re trying to log into a malicious site. Unfortunately, it’s not foolproof, because plenty of sites ask you to randomly sign into different URLs. Sigh…
Although, frankly, even as a founder, 100-hour 7-day weeks aren’t right for the vast majority of people. Clearly it worked for you, which is great, but 99% of people do not have that level of energy, and furthermore are mentally unable to withstand the sacrifices such a schedule imposes on other aspects of life.
At the moment I work 9-5, a few meetings per day, so maybe 5-6 hours focused work, and I’m mentally exhausted by the end.
I think you mean “productive” (and even that would be arguable).
Here is how I approach this - this might be a coping mechanism, but it’s certainly helped me personally.
LLMs are hugely impressive, no-one is denying that. But they have already been out for nearly 3 years at this point, and there are still massive gaps in their functionality that mean, in their current state, they are nowhere near being able to take over highly skilled work (e.g. software engineering at senior+ levels) from humans. They can handle grunt work well, but are unable to go beyond that: they operate at the level of a (poor) junior.
LLMs remind me to some extent of journalists and the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. When I ask an LLM a question in an area I am not an expert in, I’m impressed. On the other hand, when I ask it something I am an expert in, I am almost always disappointed. I don’t bother using them for complex work any more, because they lie and hallucinate too much.
Furthermore, the rate of progress appears to be slowing.
All of this gives me some hope that my own life will not be completely ruined as a result of this technology.
Currently feels like you need a PhD in programming languages to use it effectively. Feels like Haskell in many ways.
At some point AI will probably be good enough that this won’t matter. But it feels like we’re still a long way off that.
But on deeper reflection I think they are actually right. Our civilisation became great because people took pride in their work - and not just at the crop level: the average poor tailor or cobbler would take 100x more pride in their work than the average government employee today. This is a problem — I suspect largely caused by the internet and technology warping people’s reward mechanisms - and it needs addressing.