That works if the LLM has adequate external feedback from a terminal and browser in context with the past trial etc.
It can't self-correct its own reasoning: https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.01798
-17 karma · joined January 10, 2019
It can't self-correct its own reasoning: https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.01798
Your assertion that older frameworks 'became a mess at scale' is a sweeping generalization. Any technology can become a mess if not properly managed; that's not a failing of the technology but of the architecture and development practices. PHP, for instance, powers Wikipedia, one of the top-ten most visited websites in the world, and it handles this scale quite well.
The emergence of frontend frameworks was not solely because 'existing solutions did not scale'; it was also driven by the industry's evolving needs for richer user experiences and faster development cycles. These frameworks solve specific problems but come with their own trade-offs, including complexity and steep learning curves. To dismiss alternative approaches as unscalable without evidence is not just intellectually lazy; it's a disservice to the field of software engineering, which thrives on diverse solutions to complex problems.
It should say "Asteroid found will make gold under $1 per ounce"
RIP Gandi
An employee is an economic input, just like land or capital or machinery. Why do you think you're entitled to not being treated like a commodity exactly? It's their money and their risk:reward profile, not yours. You don't get a vote just because you have emotions. Labor IS a commodity. Labor takes no risks when they show up to work and collect a guaranteed paycheck.
All you can do is focus on gaining competitive skills that allow you to enjoy the luxuries you think you're entitled to automatically. You're entitled to nothing.
Web 2.0 gave us legitimate added productivity and functionality of being able to do stuff online for the first time. Web 3.0 does nothing but give us a trustless system that nobody asked for. Zero new functionality in any of those apps.
If you trust banks and FAANG companies, as most people do, Web 3.0 has exactly zero value.
"Everything in the world need _not_ be late stage capitalist democracy. There are plenty of ways to attain success and happiness."
- You meant to say "early stage" and of course there are many ways to attain success and happiness. That's why we allow people to make their own choices, elect their own representatives, and speak freely. We don't force them into accepting one single system, like they do in China. In America, we believe humans have inalienable rights that the government has no authority to usurp. The government exists subserviently to protect our rights to pursue happiness as we see fit, provided we don't infringe on the rights of others. If you want to go live in a communist community within a free society, you're more than welcome to share your income with a group of people. What you have in China is totalitarianism / authoritarianism, which we believe is axiomatically immoral, as it removes option for people to decide on their own, it removes the inalienable rights that all humans naturally have at birth. Don't you agree that you own your physical body, and you own the fruits of your labor? Don't you think you have the right to express criticism against leaders? From where exactly do they derive their authority? It's not by elected mandate. I would love to hear why you think restricting freedom and being a cheerleader for totalitarianism / authoritarianism can (even in theory) lead to greater happiness. Thank you!
1. https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/02/07/we-cant-tell-if-chinese...
2. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/25/china-business...
3. https://justthenews.com/world/asia/made-china-owned-china-20...
4. https://thediplomat.com/2019/12/politics-in-the-boardroom-th...
This took me 1 minute to assemble. There's a lot more...