adjfasn47573

I'm in Germany, in the let's say "people with higher education; good white-collar jobs with enough money for most of my friends to buy or build a house and save money for the future" bubble.

Yes, we have heard of MrBeast, most of us would likely recognize his face.

But that's about it. Nobody watches this stuff, most people in this bubble, including me, are shaking their heads at this kind of content. It's seen as low-quality stuff you actively avoid and as something you'd try to keep your kids away from.

So obviously the next logical step is to think that it is a very negative development if THAT is the kind of content that is spreading all over the world, shaping and influencing a new generation.

I've never said or implied what you're arguing against right now.

An LLM building software benefits from using a formal language, formal tests or having a formal specification in a similar way we do. Everything you can formalize into something, so you have certainty about stuff, is always a benefit.

I wasn't comparing exact science with LLMs. I was comparing current messy review processes of code performed by humans with future messy review processes of code likely performed by LLMs.

If you find a way to convert code reviews into a fully formalized process, then this is clearly the winner. If the LLMs find a way to do that, same.

If you find a way to formalize the process of driving through any street in any situation, then this is clearly the winner. Until then, driving stays messy and stochastic.

This is weird I didn't imply or say any of these things that you're arguing against right now.

> A human must verify everything an LLM presents as fact. Everything.

I've thought about this for quite some time now.

No. A human doesn't need to verify everything. And the argument is really simple: stochastic.

Think of self-driving cars: We can show today - based on evidence and real data - that self-driving cars are safer than human drivers. That's a fact and the consequences are clear, more self-driving cars, less human-driven cars, less accidents, less hurt people, less dead people.

Are the cars 100% safe and NEVER make a mistake? No. But they don't need to. Nothing is ever 100% (in the real world).

Now back to AI for software creation. "Review is the bottleneck because EVERYTHING must be judged by a human." No. It doesn't. We just need to build AI review systems, that will do reviews better than (or at least as good as) humans. The human review quality bar is far below 100%. Far far far. If we can show (likely in the next 12-24 months I think) that AI review quality is consistently above the human review quality - again, based on evidence, based on real data - then that's it, then there's no good reason to have humans review the code.

Yes, there will be another layer in the system, another level of abstraction that will/must end at the human boundary.

mpv

> since leaving one out is a message in itself

Side question: why would having a male or female mascot be "a message in itself"? Why do people want to see a message, and especially a $currentDayPolitics one, in every single thing? A mascot can be a cute mascot without having to represent anything more than exactly that.

Just as a random example: Let's say some OG founder of a project had a cute dog named Laila, and the project makes this dog its mascot. Why should that be a problem, AT ALL?

And what's even worse, if you think this "everything has a message and we have to be super careful what the message is" thing through, the conclusion is: No project ever again can have a solely male or female mascot. Which is of course absurd.

And this whole "we need to send the RIGHT message" thing falls apart with time anyway, because what the right message is, WILL change over time. You're not at the end of all human enlightenment.

Ehm... no? It's not zero value?

He's making a general point about "regardless of how something is presented to you, at the end of the day you have to look at the actual information, and if there is some truth in it, then it would be illogical to dismiss it".

> Even if we assume LLMs would consistently generate good enough quality code, code submitted by someone untrusted would still need detailed review for many reasons

Wait but under that assumption - LLMs being good enough - wouldn't the maintainer also be able to leverage LLMs to speed up the review?

Often feels to me like the current stance of arguments is missing something.

Ok but we were talking about users on discord who have to verify their age. I was under the impression that

> it can recognize you across visits and build a behavioral profile under your pseudonym

is the default Discord experience for users with an account, long before age verification entered the chat.

Sometimes I just bookmark things because I think to myself “Maybe I’ll try this out, when I have time” which then likely never happens.

So I wouldn’t give anything on 3k stars at all.

You forgot one (the sane one, which is coming soon anyway):

Using a government issued eID system. The EU is going to rollout eID in a way that a site can just ask “is this person > age xy?”. The answer is cryptographically secure in the sense that this person really is this age, but no other information about you has to be known by the site owner.

Which is the actual correct way to do it.

I don’t understand why all the sites go crazy with flawed age verification schemes right now, instead of waiting a until the eID rollout is done.

EDIT: I forgot to mention that it’s only the correct way if the implementation doesn’t give away to your government on which sites you browse… Which I believe is correctly done in the upcoming EU eID but I could be wrong about it.

I see most people stating that the internet as we know it could be gone because of AI.

I’m asking you: Why not? The internet is not even a typical human lifespan old. It’s crazy young on a large scale. Why would anyone assume that it will (and has to) stay the way it is today?

There are so many downsides of the current web. Slob everywhere (even long before AI) because of all sorts of people trying to exploit it for money.

I welcome a change. An internet with less ads, more genuine information. If AI will lead to this next phase of the internet, so be it. And this phase won’t be the last either.

omg what are you, a sadist?

“A recent study in Frontiers in Psychology monitored brain activity in students taking notes and found that those writing by hand had higher levels of electrical activity across a wide range of interconnected brain regions responsible for movement, vision, sensory processing and memory. The findings add to a growing body of evidence that has many experts speaking up about the importance of teaching children to handwrite words and draw pictures.”

Absolutely but this is not “recent” knowledge. This is known in neuro sciences for at least a decade.

My biggest hope is many western countries that see a decline in education results since the 90s/00s will finally start to reform education and use scienctific knowledge as a bases for how to structure it.

If you can - it’s German, maybe there’s some Auto translation available these days - watch Manfred Spitzer’s talk about “Digitale Demenz” (digital dementia). It’s eye opening!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5EKy0x55L4 Actual talk starts at 14:53.

I think your comment comes from a very specific point of view. Like software/tech jobs. (Even there you have long term stuff that we all would definitely benefit from).

There are so many things where short-term only thinking is counter-productive. It swallows money, creates frustration and leaves an overall net-negative to society and the world.

Just one example would be city planning. Repairing a road? What else is there like fiber cables, maybe some tram tracks, and so on, long term planning would be to acquire a holistic picture and to plan one timespan where everything is done fast but with quality. It’s a few months construction, after that everything is fine for years or even a few decades to come. But what you see instead is one part of the state that manages fiber cables doing there own thing, another part that manages street quality do their own thing. So the street has a construction site for a year (for just improving one part) then a few months nothing then another year of construction again, nothing, construction and soon you have over a decade of constant on and off construction work on this one street. Something that could’ve been done in 6-12 months once and be done, if planned correctly and with long term and holistic picture in mind.

And this is just one example. The world is full of stuff like this. Short term might be a good thing for very specific types of projects, but I hard disagree that short term is overall better in any way.

In my opinion this shortterm thinking is a huge negative factor of modern societies. Because not everything is a tech startup where things change super fast.

This.

I never read any discussion about the obvious question: Who guarantees that enabling Privacy-Preserving Ad Measurement will keep all the other tracking away from me? No one! I've never read anything at all about the thought process behind this.

As you said, with current (EU) law and regulations, it's just one more data point.

So it's worth nothing.