block_dagger

I'm not so quick to label him an asshole. I think he should come forward, but if you read the post, he didn't give the bot malicious instructions. He was trying to contribute to science. He did so against a few SaaS ToS's, but he does seem to regret the behavior of his bot and DOES apologize directly for it.

In my experience building a couple ChatGPT apps and, through colleagues, working with OpenAI folks, I'm not sure they should be building anything in their current state. Seems quite disorganized over there.

Although better known for his singing voice, it's true that the voice he used when cryptographically signing private messages was also impressive.

Weren’t. Subjunctive mood.

Talk the LLM and have it explain code. Write very small examples by hand and make sure you understand how they work. Big software is just a bunch of those small things working together.

What our modern western culture views as inequality, evolutionary mechanics views as fat to be trimmed.

I think a lot of the people in positions of power in the AI industry think that AGI/superintelligence will solve the climate crisis, aging, scarcity, and many other tough problems by doing novel science. I hope they are correct.

I’d query the top 3 frontier models.

I've lived in California for 20 years so this is my first year of non-draught. We've been enjoying the unusual prevalence of greenery in Orange County.

Bird Internet?

Having no such thing as an uncommitted change seems like it would be a nightmare, but perhaps I'm just too git-oriented.

…says every charlatan who wanted to keep their position. I’m not saying you’re a charlatan but you are likely overestimating your own contributions at work. Your comment about feeding on data - AI can read faster than you can by orders of magnitude. You cannot compete.

Conversational UI + MCP + deterministic widget GUI = ChatGPT apps. These will become more prevalent.

Given the name, I expected more actual ASCII characters/options and selectable text. Visually appealing and fun to play with, however.

I think we all need to respond by being very, very flexible and open minded about how to contribute to society going forward. I'm on the back end of my career but I imagine it's terrifying for newcomers. Stay agile! We're all in this together.

How about just be punctual, respecting the time others have agreed to meet with you? Simpler solution than what this article suggests. People will abuse that system just the same anyway.

I suspect a lot of the traffic shift is from Google replacing the top search result, which used to be Stack Overflow for programming questions, with a Gemini answer.

That is a surprising take. I wouldn't describe Ruby that way at all.

ChatGPT was writing 11+ lines of usable Python every second for 24 hours? I highly doubt that. Also your reasoning about value is confusing.

Ah, UO memories. PK killing as a Great Lord, Blackthorne shield in hand. Visiting town was all "bank" "bank" "bank" "lfg" "bank"

I stopped reading at “static typing.” That is not what “good code” always looks like.

It’s not a huge impediment but it adds up through: extra lines of sig code I now need to essentially ignore as I read as well as waiting for precommit hooks to check a giant codebase for compliance, plus extra rbi files in git. If engineers followed convention over config and tested types where necessary, no need for inline types. Just use TS if you want types.

Why? Because Python is generally slower, uses significant whitespace in its syntax, and lacks the metaprogramming features of Ruby.

As long as Matz is firmly against, inline typing should never be a part of Ruby. I started working on a large Rails codebase that adopted Sorbet and it is nothing but an impediment to progress.

The headline does not match the article title and is currently nonsensical.

Happy Ruby 4.0 day! Thanks Matz et al.

Fair. Though it seems that half of engineering is just giving a respectable name to whatever actually works.

Do you often rant like this based on completely incorrect info? Could save yourself some time and downvotes by doing basic research first.

You had me until the last sentence. Your easy assumption seems nonsensical to me.

Counter question: how does a training set, representing a window into the past, differ from your own experience as an intelligent entity? Are you able to see into the future? How?