This is why people use AI so heavily. Because no matter how bad or ill formed a question is, it wo answer it the most "caring" way possible, and never berate you for it being a stupid question, common sense, etc (as long as it is about some forbidden topic of course)
If i remember correctly, some other places of the internet (4chan) completely this sort of behavior because people use it to hide images of ...unsavory topics
It's funny that you don't realize you are doing the same thing; you are giving the absolute change like the article is doing; you are just doing the change in the rate instead of the underlying quantity. A 4% change in my rate if the original rate is 4% would be a 100% rate rate change, which of course is substantial.
>Jarred has managed public relations very poorly (e.g. ghosting the Zig foundation)
I actually love the use of ghosting in this post. It is almost a Freudian slip about how Zig looks like from the view of outsiders. Zig moves exactly like how toxic exes do. They point fingers, make passive-aggressive statements, unnecessarily air out dirty laundry, and downplay all of the good their partner has done during the relationship.
I feel as thought Meta, compared to other tech giants, have a vested interest in saying that AI failed, as they are the only major tech company that has almost unequivocally lost the AI race.
Yes, I didn't look at the replies until late, but you are correct. The invariant of the situation is that there are a large number of people who want 1-2 positions, and there are not enough resources in the company to interview and evaluate them all in person. My point is that when you remove measures like a performance on a project from play, and are forced to whittle down a group of applicants to an interviewable-sized group, people will start to pick increasingly "unfair" ways to do so. No one wants to risk hiring a person for a position who simply cannot perform at the level necessary for the job. If they don't have a project to separate the people who can perform versus the people who can't, then they have to use other markers to say why one person has a better chance of performing well than another, of which previous employer/alumni and references from trusted sources are by far the easiest ones.
Half of those don't actually require proxying Claude. Also, Claude has made it apparent time and time again that it does not want people using Claude Code as a "tool" in a workflow. If you want to select a model dynamically based on the prompt difficulty, Anthropic wants people to use the API for this. It was the whole issue Claude had with OpenClaw.
Yes, people don’t realize that’s why a lot of desirable jobs/grad schools become filled with people from top universities and previous employment. Pedigree is probably the lowest hanging fruit when it comes to shaving off a good chuck of applicants to a level that at least you know would be adequate.
I guess it may be semantics, but I agree that I would have the same expectation. However, I also I think getting fired would be a justified punishment in the situation.
It’d like playing a computer game during free library time at the school when I was a kid; I would expect to be reprimanded, however just outright barring use from the computer during free time would probably be justified.
Yes, this is the ubiquitous memory issue that I mentioned. Unfortunately, it is now the baseline in all modern apps.
>random lines disappear in the scroll back, it’s internal state gets messed up causing the TUI to show duplicate and/or offset lines,
I haven't seen this issue, other than when I am using a shell that is bugged and does it with all TUI/console programs (usually a virtualized shell which I resized). Do you have a reproducible example of this?
How are Anthropic's production applications poor quality? Other than memory use (which unfortunately is the industry standard nowadays) Claude Code is pretty solid.
The issue is that the legal system is retroactive, and information that is made public cannot be retracted. If a random company gets your sensitive data and disseminates it to the world, then sure, they will face legal repercussions, but the damage would have already been done to you.
I don't think they can, at least if they are making an argument for why the Defense Production Act should not apply to them. Their original argument is that they will not help with anything that is unconstitutional, such as the unlawful spying on American citizens, without a warrant.
OK, that is relevant context, because the quotes that people are saying he plagiarized wouldn't make sense to count as plagiarism in a physics thesis. I was scratching my head, thinking of how he could have plagiarized Camus in a physics thesis that isn't just some turn of phrase.
I think one time I asked opus about copyfail when it just came out and it did treat me like some sort of criminal, but are there really people that run into this on a regular basis other than cybersecurity experts (which cannot be a big enough group to generate all of this criticism)?
I do not agree that the concept of writing can be considered a specific tool at all. Maybe a pencil, but writing opposed to remembering everything is a more substantial level of a paradigm shift than AI use is.
The personalized algorithm is not the root issue though. The root issue is that social media sites live by increasing engagement of its viewers. Because of this, they all get away from the original stated purpose of bringing people together, and go all in on maximizing engagement by increasingly shady ways. Of course, the personalized algorithm is a huge one, but there are also things like "Show HN" controlling what is on the front page, selectively taking down flagged material. Remember, HN has advertisements as well, and will regularly post job ads for positions in startups. They know that outright going in the direction of 'personalized algorithm' would alienate their viewerbase, so they avoid it, but still do all of the other practices that social media sites do.