argee

It's just a textbook, garden-variety power trip. It's neither the first nor last time this professor will go on one.

https://www.ratemyprofessors.com/professor/2231495

The reason I added that quote, by the way, was because although nowadays people typically use "ignorance is bliss" as a blanket justification for willful ignorance, intellectual laziness, or avoiding uncomfortable truths, when English poet Thomas Gray coined the phrase in his 1742 poem (Ode on a Distant Prospect of Eton College), he was expressing a sentiment about the inevitable loss of childhood innocence.

    Yet ah! why should they know their fate?
    Since sorrow never comes too late,
    And happiness too swiftly flies.
    Thought would destroy their paradise.
    No more; where ignorance is bliss,
    ’Tis folly to be wise.

And yes, I knew I'd be downvoted for it.

    To each his suff'rings: all are men,
    Condemn'd alike to groan

    Where ignorance is bliss, / 'Tis folly to be wise

I have such an insatiable curiosity, but it really strips the "magic" from the world more often than not. I think it's much more fun to make believe that no one understands LLMs, for example, than to know that not only do we understand them quite well enough, it is also quite boring in the end. As are all things once the curtain has been peeked.

"Coding Is Solved" should occur to you as a classic Motte & Bailey style argument [0] that relies on ambiguity. Would you agree with the following?

"Software architecture is solved, there is no longer any need for human intervention in the architecture or design of any software, nor in any subsequent stage"

Well, that is what Dario et al would like you to believe. However, the argument they can actually defend is:

"Programmers no longer need to type the code out by hand in most cases, they can get the result they want with (several iterations of) higher level instruction."

What a farce. Too bad people eat it up!

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy

> even if that means I will never be able to be accepted there

You need Japanese blood (visibly), culture (language, manner, custom), and nationality to be "fully" accepted. This isn't new and has more to do with Japanese people themselves than with any legal restriction.

Ambitious doesn't mean complex. Where did that idea even come from? I don't see this connection being introduced properly in this thread?

As an example, heliocentrism was profoundly ambitious yet devastatingly simple compared to geocentric formulae.

The irony here is that you bring up scamming the elderly, a process that works at scale precisely because people are controllable, and quite predictably at that. Where's the counterargument?

Yes, tech hiring is that broken. Especially places paying a pretty penny or those with “great expectations”, will see a glut of smooth talkers who can do anything but build, and want nothing but wealth.

> There are many ways to think and there isn’t one that is more correct than others.

Charlie Munger once said "The right way to think is how Zeckhauser plays bridge. It's just that simple." He managed to boil it down to a single way to think. You disagree?

Warren's response:

https://youtu.be/Z1sTs8wkAbw

I'm just trying to explain why people are posting what they are posting. E.g. "likely from a stress tolerance so shallow and under-developed that the slightest inconvenience or expectation feels like a crisis" stems partly from the immature writing style.

But given that you are posting passive-aggressive "okay?"s to my explanation while purporting that you don't understand the comments while alluding to the notion that you do understand exactly why...makes me think you are just a troll, or worse.

> the gist of the post is "do something because you feel like doing it, not because you feel like you have to." and "the goal is to just do your own thing.".

So basically, a main character life, the life of a player. A player can even choose not to play the game, and it isn't their whole world.

The reason this post is incendiary is due to their overwrought metaphor which ultimately works quite poorly, if at all.

Plus, it reads like a 15 year old's diary entry.

> The idea that optimization matters less over time is short-term thinking.

The more you think about things and the deeper you investigate, the closer you get to realizing that most aphorisms, advice, and even "facts" are a combination of best-effort philosophy and selection biases from the lowest common denominator. Add in the Barnum effect and you end up with an ocean of inconsequential platitudes being parroted by every Tom, Dick, and Harry.

It's very difficult, requires active effort, and goes against human nature to act rationally. Most people don't even want to do it.

I do turn thinking off most of the time for both models. I made a separate comment detailing my use cases.

Wow, that's just about half the perf. I'm not sure what you're doing differently, though our hardware is a bit different: I am on a Macbook Pro M4 Pro, while you're on a Mac Mini.

I would try a different version of the model from HuggingFace while ensuring it's MLX. I'm also using LM Studio, not oMLX, and I've seen some threads like these:

https://www.reddit.com/r/LocalLLaMA/comments/1spuwir/omlx_10...

Some examples (keep in mind this is all indefinitely free for me, no burning quota away):

1. Getting information (such as information about hardware unfamiliar to me) when not connected to the internet, which happens occasionally in my case.

2. Continuing to learn Rust by way of toy examples, puzzles, and comparing aspects of various solutions, for example from LeetCode.

3. Reformatting data, for example from a PDF to a markdown table, or converting receipt images to text.

4. Simple translation/explanation (e.g. I'm teaching my wife one of the languages I speak but sometimes may not know/have the words to explain the full nuance of a translated word).

5. Summarization. One of the webnovels I'm reading has some very boring parts I don't want to slog through, in those cases I simply make the LLM summarize that part and move on.

Etc., you get the idea. It's not unusable for coding, but it would make many mistakes when making a whole feature and the context lengths are limited to around 30k-40k tokens by my RAM. I could give it access to the web but I simply use an online model when I need that sort of thing, again partly due to the context limit.

Edit: The MLX version of Gemma 4 26b a4b does about 62 tok/s.

I have an M4 pro (48 GB ram) and I run Gemma 4 26b a4b at 52 tok/s and Qwen 3.5b a3b at 72 tok/s. Both 4bit quantized. These are enough for my needs and the performance is more than good enough. I'm not running the MLX version of the Gemma model, if I did the inference speed would likely be a bit better. I wouldn't use them for coding features though.

Isn't that begging the question? For one, people can wear a lion headdress, making it something that does exist in real life. Secondly, it seems to be carved from a single tusk, which might have forced some choices when it comes to anatomy, rather than being "as conceived".

Or as one might say, predictably irrational.

> I kinda feel that this person makes a lot of noise in this website.

This person pretty much lives on HN:

https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=simonw

Personally I do think that people with huge amounts of karma contribute to a bit of a groupthink atmosphere, but Hacker News is set up to be more in their favor (which I think makes sense, to get a lot of karma they've been around a while and also understand what gets upvoted around here).

> Can we rate limit them a bit?

This submission was not made by simonw themselves, so I'm not sure what the ask is here. I think people ought to be submit to post whatever websites they want? It would be interesting to block simonw's own votes from influencing simonwillison.net submissions, but that would be hard to impose fairly across all webmasters.

Part of being smart is being able to diagnose certain ideas as dogmatic, which is far more than can be expected from most.

"Most people would die sooner than think—in fact, they do so" — Bertrand Russell

My bad, the English word I had in mind was "technology" (技術) but I misremembered due to feeling like "tech" should be its own token.

Read this.

https://openai.com/index/where-the-goblins-came-from/

> We retired the “Nerdy” personality in March after launching GPT‑5.4. In training, we removed the goblin-affine reward signal and filtered training data containing creature-words, making goblins less likely to over-appear or show up in inappropriate contexts. Unfortunately, GPT‑5.5 started training before we found the root cause of the goblins. When we began testing GPT‑5.5 in Codex, OpenAI employees immediately noticed the strange affinity for goblins, and we added a developer-prompt instruction (opens in a new window) to mitigate. Codex is, after all, quite nerdy.

Note that the permanent solution was not just adjusting the prompt, and in fact being perfectly aware of that option they decided on a different course of action. That means either you are wrong or they are wrong.

> Anyway, you might have more luck just writing to it in your native language.

This is potentially expensive advice (at least for many mainstream options). Where an English word like "literature" is one token, a couple of Chinese characters that spell a word can be 4 tokens. You'll pay more for input/output and get less of a context window (per word) too.

Back when I interviewed at MS as a college senior, I had no clue about these "formats". So when someone asked me how I would make (I think they meant design) a web crawler, I started writing one in Python. They didn’t stop me, and it seemed to be awkward to them that I was doing this, whereas I felt awkward that they were acting that way when I was doing what they asked. It was just stupid all around. These systems deserve to be gamed, and the interviewers can't handle anything else, like in TFA.

I feel like having such a map at all is kind of antithetical to building community. Shows you don't care enough to take a stroll in your 'hood to find such a one by happenstance (or to find neighbors to populate yours) and are hunting them down to share your self-published slop or something. Besides, it makes things a hell of a lot easier for griefers and trolls.

The only widely publicized AI orchestrated cyberattack in recent memory came from a closed-weight model, and the only widely publicized defense from said attack came from an open-weight Chinese model. What do you make of that?

> I don’t think that an AI monopoly or duopoly should be allowed to exist either

Monopolies have always been allowed to exist, even welcomed. People have gotten confused, but there is a big difference between a monopoly and an illegal monopoly. Deciding what should and shouldn’t be allowed to exist as determined by regulatory bodies and not consumers goes against democratic principles (though it is sometimes necessary, such as with drugs).

I don’t think I want to live in a world where police decides what brand of chips I can eat on the sole basis of the chips having gotten too popular. Do you?

Yes, anything that was statically lit was fine. The game had absurdly low graphics requirements for modern standards, but even so I didn't have a GPU, just integrated graphics. So hacking the game to not render dynamically lit items was enough to make it playable (also needed some tweaks that would let it even launch in the first place). I obviously can't say exactly what I did though, this was a very, very long time ago (24 years).

I had similar situations in my youth, I have fond memories of hacking games up so they'd work without the 3D models. You haven't lived until you've played Mafia only being able to see the player's shadow beating up the target's shadow with a bat.

More sensibly, their insurance could just toss a clause in and charge higher premiums to cover for this, while adding some conditions to help prevent it.