Tanjreeve

Is bitemporal more than being able to time travel by transaction and having some sort of time lookup for next transaction? It's a new term to me.

Opus recommending a database server to swap in for an embedded file based database is either an outcome of the overwhelming volume of cloud based web dev + API glue code chat it was trained on or it's being obsequious but wrong.

Most graph databases I'm aware of require a server and aren't embedded into applications. Using datalog and applying it to graphs also more general and thus preferable than cypher which is still a niche specifically for graph databases.

Also "because they can" seems obligatory.

Does the sales manager even care if it's AI either post hype? For most people on the "AI assistant" use case they care about having something that they can type a question into and smart answers come out. If you could serve it with a cache and call it AI they wouldn't care if it's not giving dumb answers.

This has happened before with cloud computing. There was lots of people talking about how every employee would spin up their own servers etc and huge productivity gains. In the end all of that leverage mostly got absorbed by the engineering teams and gatekept and the rest of the business gets to use it through a GUI.

> I believe we'll see a shift to more organizations building their own harnesses with model routing logic to get central control over who can use what AI and for what.

This is what happened with cloud computing. People with expertise wrote software around the software creating machine because just giving naked compute to people en-masse didn’t actually achieve anything valuable. Likewise all of the talk of enterprise agents etc, they’re all custom software that wraps around a reasoning model.

If a Smith and Wesson employee shot a random passerby while testing new firearms then yes that probably would cause some legal issues.

Love this reference but the Minds are self building intelligences and (iirc) run their internal logic in hyperspace to get around the limits of the speed of light among other fantastical things. If we had genuine super intelligence like that then the discussion on how to use it would be moot as we wouldn’t be in that discussion.

Isn't this basically the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy passage on the computer that spends millions of years to determine the ultimate answer to be 42 and then when people get upset at how meaningless that answer is offers to build another even bigger computer to figure out what the question was.

This smelt like spin to me when they started putting it out.

1. Microsoft/OpenAI have their incredible world destroying AI surely this should be a non-issue as coding is solved.

2. Are their customers the only ones using AI while gitlab/{competitor} customers are untouched by AI?

Gun companies don't market their guns as sentient and capable of independent decision making. Nor do they build systems for shooting things that they host and take money. Gun companies are very clear who is in control and where their responsibility ends.

My understanding of these predictions was more like the UI is headless and rendered from the http response/JSON etc rather than the entire thing is generated ad-hoc.

> Ok but you do realize that AI can also solve problems?

Why have companies with infinite amounts of AI and expertise not deployed comprehensive end to end solutions for business problems?

Every solution they've come up with is "here's a tool. The solution to make money from it is left up to the reader". Why would they leave all that money on the table?

That is not even 1% of what therapists do. Let alone medical ones/psychiatrists.

If you're comparing good jeans and a good t shirt then not In my experience. Likewise you can also buy a crappy suit for not a lot of money. I think the core point stands that a suit gives pretty good bang for your buck now and hasn't been enshittified as much as casual clothing is.

I think there's a difference between tech enthusiasts and nerds. Sometimes they might overlap a bit as the technology and the commercialisation overlaps (e.g crypto Vs nfts) but I don't think they're the same thing. My napkin theory is that anything that makes you the end user in their product roadmap (e.g Claude, Ubuntu, AWS) gets tech fans while anything that might not be a fully coherent product but has you figuring out using it gets nerd fans (e.g open models, Debian, Home labs)

>If you set partisan politics aside for 90 seconds

About the people who gutted every major agency and meddled constantly making forces less effective in the name of the most partisan of partisan politics? Most people won't and that is a completely self-created problem.

I'm not sure if you're acting obtuse or you genuinely don't understand the difference between not doing something stupid versus extracting yourself from a stupid situation.

If I jump off a building and land on the pavement and break both of my legs this does not mean the person who is watching me from the street is as foolish as me despite us both ending up in the same place. The reason why I am dumber than this fictional observer is that we have not taken the same route to get there and I now have broken legs

The fact this thread descended into a load of philosophical chin stroking about what is truly AI perfectly illustrates the core point that all regulation should just be targeted at use cases and what people are doing with the software.

If a plane could run on some sort of local LLM it should still be governed by the same laws and damages when something goes wrong same as people don't spend time quibbling about the implementation language of software they care about demonstrating capabilities.

This is probably why web development and scripts are much more effective domains while anyone working on anything even slightly off the track is either tearing their hair out or writing a new layer of software to write the software.

I thought this was about playing a pacman game. I feel like we already established that LLMs can create simple games and "local" apps at this point

Not getting themselves in over their heads expending loads of money and blood is somehow a bad thing now? Historys proven the doubt right outside some really niche circles.

If it matters then people will have to start building their own libraries/vendoring etc. I don't see any change in the dilemma to the times before widely available well tested OSS. There is still no legal agreements between OSS and their users so I'm sure people running businesses on OSS we're prepared for this.

If the anti-AI people have skill issues because they're holding it wrong then when the output is crap it's the fault of the person with no skill issues who is using It correctly. It can't be both ways.

That's a problem of customers stop paying for the product. If the don't then it's a philosophical discussion. I don't like the dilemma because I've been in a company that went bust from years of bungling it couldn't recover from and I wouldn't want to repeat the experience.

If someone was a crappy developer it was also a coin flip if anything actually got shipped. AI will shove it out the door in whatever state it can.

Starts to get a bit philosophical on what constitutes "portable" but JIT compilers would emit an opcode based off of whatever the frontend/IR is saying to do surely?

This set of accusations I found particularly disingenuous when they were getting hammered as they took the outcome of the original campaign and used that to justify the original dishonesty which I find pretty sketchy.

A victim under a years long hate campaign by activists getting a bit jumpy or making a false alarm then becoming further fuel to the fire as those stories in turn get blown up is just proving the point. Someone with known mental health history raising a false alarm of a break in then becomes further perpetuation of the story. If security failed to respond to an alarm then that doesn't seem like the fault of the victim but even that is then snuck in as "evidence" in this list. Argument by volume basically summarises this whole thing.

> There are many examples of prominent black figures being intimidated [...] But the abuse and harassment Arday has outlined would be some of the most extreme any academic has been subjected to in the UK. When Arday was asked about his claims by the Guardian, he stood by them. “To be honest with you, I thought you’d just believe me,” he said. “Why would I lie?” He would be jeopardising his career.

Again the implications of some sort of ranking comes from the perpetrators in the media. But nonetheless The guy was hounded to death over several years so it's at least up there a little wouldn't you think unless you think it somehow didn't exist?

There are huge systems supporting that ignorance though. And where those systems are breaking down people do care.

So they went out of their way to turn off the magic good useful data that isn't being manipulated switch here but the rest of the time it's fine? Seems like a lot of effort to go to.

A lot of government appendages are still waiting for the dust to settle on this new fangled cloud computing thing in fairness. I don't think it's some deep masterplan