So-called "companion" AIs are usually overlooked because they are clearly predatory. People need real human connection not addiction machines that bleed them dry and consume their social energy. Making a buck on someone else's misery is no way to live!
I see what you are saying, thank you. Personally, I would not rely on IQ scores for much, mainly because people have become increasingly specialized and I wouldn't expect specialized knowledge to translate well to a general intelligence test. It also does not seem as though other general forms of intelligence map well to IQ and it may even be arguably one of the less useful measures of intelligence outside of the extremes. e.g., I would expect a high school student in Calc 2 to crush me in a math test, but I would never go to them seeking life advice. I'm not married to this belief and could probably be swayed, but that is my current impression.
IQ scoring is routinely adjusted so that 100 represents the mean. It should be expected that IQ scores for college grads trend towards 100 as higher percentages of the population go to college. University is also not designed to maximize standardized test scores the same way that public high school is. I would expect recency and intensity of math education to play a higher role in IQ scores than the specialized knowledge and exposure to the arts that comes from a college education.
Having a highly educated population is a major competitive advantage for a society that materializes itself in more ways than I could ever hope to enumerate. We need to bring tuition down closer to what the educational portion of it actually costs and pump as many able people through college as possible. Engineers, waiters, cops, everyone.
Like I said, we can all read your comments. Needs no further elaboration. If I receive a second recommendation for Curtis then I might be inclined to check it out. Take it easy.
You seem to be lost. While referencing a TV show may or may not be a rebuttal to a very specific kind of worldview, it is out of place as a response to my post to which you've failed to actually directly reference at all.
I'm addressing this point at you personally because we can all see your comments: being nasty to atheists on the internet will never be a substitute for hard evidence for your ideology.
Before that quoted sentence you drew a line from the reformation to people believing that AI is inevitable, then went on to imply these people may even believe such a thing will happen without the involvement of people. These are generalizations which don't fit a lot of the literature and make their best ideas look a bit sillier than they are. It is situations like these that make me think that analogies are better suited as a debate tactic than a method of study.
To the contrary. I sped through my compsci capstone coursework first year of college and spent most of the rest of my time in philosophy, psychology, and sociology classrooms. The "hey if you squint this thing it looks like religion for the non-religious" perspective is just one I've heard countless times. It is perfectly valid to have a fact based discussion on whether there is a biological desire for religiosity, but drawing a long line from that to broadly critique someone's well-articulated ideas is pretty sloppy.
I'm pretty bearish on the idea that AGI is going to take off anytime soon, but I read a significant amount of theology growing up and I would not describe the popular essays from e.g., LessWrong as religious in nature. I also would not describe them as appearing poorly read. The whole "look they just have a new god!" is a common trope in religious apologetics that is usually just meant to distract from the author's own poorly constructed beliefs. Perhaps such a comparison is apt for some people in the inevitable AGI camp, but their worst arguments are not where we should be focusing.
There wasn't as much JS to test. I built a progressively-enhanced SQLite GUI not too long ago to refresh my memory on the methodology, and I wound up with 50-ish lines of JS not counting Turbo. Fifty. It was a simple app, but it had the same style of partial DOM updates and feel that you would see from a SPA when doing form submissions and navigation.
Public workers are more positively impactful to the operation of society than many engineers working in digital widget factories. Bureaucracy limits potential, for good reason, but doing something is still more than nothing.
Sharing the backup strategy that I use for my personally website which I feel strikes a decent balance between simplicity and reliability. I'm curious what feedback that you all have, and what backup techniques that you use for SQLite.
If you're going to be this superstitious, then you might as well lean into it and have a little fun. Better throw some herbs into the air and do a little jig for good measure. Personally, I'm going to accept that I won't be able to tell, because models are trained and prompted to appear human.
> Does an intern cost $20/month? Because that’s what Cursor.ai costs.
The cost is a pretty obvious indication that it's nowhere near the capability of an engineer. A robotic worker that can produce code 24/7 without tiring would be worth even more than a person of equivalent skill. I don't know what kinds of goofy hiring ya'll are doing, but all of the juniors I've been involved in hiring actually worked out great.
Agency work seems to be a blind spot for individuals within the startup world, with many not realizing that it goes way beyond theme chop shops. The biggest companies on the planet not only contract with agencies all the time, external contractors do some of their best work. e.g., Huge has won 3 Webby awards for Google products.
I grew up in a household with a professional fundraiser, so I always look up financials of nonprofits before giving or volunteering. It's shocking just how many are passive income schemes for the wealthy.
> Aider’s polyglot benchmark tests LLMs on 225 challenging Exercism coding exercises across C++, Go, Java, JavaScript, Python, and Rust.
I looked up Exercism and they appear to be story problems that you solve by coding on mostly/entirely blank slates, unless I'm missing something? That format would seem to explain why the models are reportedly performing so well, because they definitely aren't that reliable on mature codebases.
It's just tooling. Costs nothing to wait for it to be better. It's not like you're going miss out on AGI. The cost of actually testing every slop code generator is non-trivial.
Software engineering requires a fair amount of intelligence, so if these tools ever get to replacement levels of quality then it's not just developers that will be out of jobs. ARC-AGI-2, the countless anecdotes from professionals I've seen across the industry, and personal experience all very clearly point to a significant gap between the tools that exist today and general intelligence. I would recommend keeping an eye on improvements just because of the sheer capital investments going into it, but I won't be losing any sleep waiting for the rapture.
It makes sense that some kinds of schema optimizations are fairly esoteric, because the services most devs work on don't need them. An ORM is something you import on day one to speed up development; while rearranging tables to remove joins may not be needed (or even justifiable based on metrics) for another five years. I would hope that the ORM is flexible enough to be irrelevant to the trade-off between schemas though. Your comment about not having a database in CI brings back nightmares! Reminds me of how at my first job they had us running SQLite in CI and then shipping to Postgres, which worked about as well as you can imagine haha
I've been building one for Go in my free time, but it's not ready for general use. Historically, I've used Django despite being imperfect, because I can just install Wagtail and have a nice admin interface for free. It does have some nice convenience features though and transactions are easy enough. At my day job we use a Java framework with a terrible codegen-based ORM. Laravel has a decent database toolkit if you are into PHP. Unfortunately, excellent database toolkits are rare, and I have historically found myself dipping into SQL frequently. All decent ones will at least allow you to do so though.
Could this be selection bias? I've never worked with a backend engineer that couldn't write SQL. I've worked on plenty of projects were there were bugs in hand written SQL though.
These are important features for a database toolkit to consider. I don't think that it is fair to dismiss an entire category of libraries on the grounds of some implementations being less complete than desired though. If we applied that same standard more generally, then we wouldn't use anything at all, because most software libraries kind of stink.
Nah. The most prolific backend frameworks are all built on ORMs for good reason. The best ones can deserialize inputs, validate them, place those object directly into the db, retrieve them later as objects, and then serialize them again all from essentially just a schema definition. Just to name a few advantages. Teams that take velocity seriously should use ORMs. As with any library choice you need to carefully vet them though.
And at least back when I tried it a long time ago, it wouldn't pull in updates from OSM in a timely manner. Like I updated something in OSM and a month later it still wasn't available in organic maps. Maybe it is better now?