falserum

I am not a parent, you got me.

But I do have quite close relationships to several families and their children.

Some parents actively teach kids to read before going to school (despite certain developmental challenges the kid has), while others see it as a job of teachers to teach meaning of left/right or how to tie a shoe (not joking).

Btw. Most (All?) management techniques could be compared to dog training (positive and negative reinforcements), it does not make it bad or immoral.

> But when you say that "parents are not powerless" your implication overstates that power. There's no way to force a child to be curious or to care about a subject.

By “not powerless” I meant exactly what I said, power is NOT 0%. And yes, as person grows, that power/influence diminishes fast, so I would say early influence is especially crucial.

Btw. If all kids of a same parents have “bad manners” (kick and scream when others silently read), while all kids of other parent are well behaved (to a reasonable extent), then either manners are a genetical trait or maybe nurture part is quite an important thing.

I had 2 hour transfer in Frankfurt am Mein, so I wanted to do something that is Germany is know for, so I decided to get a nice doenner kebab (it was good :))

(Btw. Last week I was in Istanbul; maybe unlucky, but I did not like kebab in Turkey, ingredients were somehow strange)

Other comments mention: Ireland and Dresden (orders placed earlier probably)

And to express opinions or commemorate a good/bad football match :)

It does not need to be 100% Russia operation. Some people did actually want nuclear shutdown (greens), Russia then just needs to help a little (in completely unrelated Mr. Gerhard S. has comfy chair at Rosneft)

Laymens guess what problems it could introduce:

Vacuum does not dissipate heat well (extra engineering in that department)

Vacuum is never 100% vacuum. If you have some dust in the air, it will mostly flow to the direction of the airflow, but in vacuum dust particles will do random walk thing and settle on surfaces.

There are two fronts. If they like the discipline and if they follow rules.

In both cases I disagree (to some extent)

Parents are not powerless.

You can’t force love for geography, but you can choose to ignore or give full attention when child asks some geographical question.

Same with setting boundaries and teaching to follow the rules. Kids definitely test boundaries, and thats good, they should learn to negotiate and sometimes win, but still kids that know boundaries at home will know boundaries in the classroom.

Green threads don’t allocate stack frames and do not require such a massive context switch, which in turn allows for many more threads.

How do you take the phone from a child refusing to give it up? (It Needs parent buy-in, which is not guaranteed)

0. children that listen to the teacher (depends on factors outside the classroom, like how parents raise the child)

Every hybrid attack will increase spending towards Ukraine.

Is slavery a war? Yes or no?

Is genocide a war? Yes or no? (Its definitely worse, but is it actually war if one side does not resist?)

Without “once a guy said …”, neither of them are a war.

War involves battles, it involves fight, it involves opposition.

This answer is not for you personally, but for me and other readers. I see you are not interested in other opinions.

> So are you agreeing with me or not? I’m disagreeing with black or white view.

You make it A bit black or white.

Llm will not take jobs, at worst it will shift jobs.

If we will allow current llm to develop code without inspecting it, we will still want to provide direction and expect certain quality level. So in “worst” case you will need at least design/QA people.

If code will be free, and it will increase 1000x, you probably will need 100x design/QA people. (Unit tests written by same llm, if not reviewed are worthless as assurance). I’m absolutely certain that humans will have plenty of software related jobs.

As to programmer deskilling, another parallel: lot of programmers have very little knowledge of how to deal with databases correctly/efficiently, because they are somewhat lazy and good tooling/orms allow to get away with it, but there are also plenty of devs who do know how db works and how to design a db schema for their app access as it improves overall system performance and correctness. Same with LLM case, having knowledge of what happens in code, gives an edge, and competitive/curious/overly-responsible people will continue reading things in depth (llms also make learning somewhat easier). And its definitely not 1%.

Furthermore, llm prices are subsidised a lot now, so it’s yet to be seen if llms are economically viable as vibe coding agents on a large scale.

All will be ok, don’t worry too much.

Belief without evidence is faith. I’m “agnostic” here.

I have no data for neither, so I’ll wait for numbers.

Will LLMs stay being useful? Definitely. Will in 10 years touching/changing code be somewhat niche, like ASM development is now? Not clear yet.

And optimisations are not a given, a lot of low hanging fruit are already taken, because it actually saves lots of money already now.

Agents (controlled by same population of devs) can generate unmaintainable code on a different scale.

We still have to wait for actual cost of generated tokens to be revealed.

Economics depend on that a lot.

Unsolicited suggestion:

- ignore that it is annoying to some. (To certain degree, it is unavoidable and it is ok)

- reserve 1 hour meeting every month(week?) to demo/review/present.

- get buy-in and support words from manager

Some de-skill, but not all.

Somewhat relevant parallel..

Calculators exist, but not all is lost:

- lot of (most?) people can do basic multiplication (I’m too lazy to fetch any stats but I hope you’ll have some observations in your bubble dear reader)

- some people actually compete in mental calculations https://worldmentalcalculation.com/mental-calculations-world...

Same will be with software devs, enthusiasts will continue to exist.

To my understanding people at NASA and people approving budgets like novel stuff. What’s the point of 100 identical rovers on mars? For politician - good publicity only for first 5 rovers, then it is only routine. For engineers, challenge of designing and constructing new cutting edge stuff is interesting and fulfilling, constructing 50th clone is boring. (If now you give money to top talent to do cutting edge, then after 5years you will have pool of talented people; might benefit next mission or some other company)

The parent point still stands. Poland and England and everybody could have just not resisted, and accepted occupation, then there would be no war. (Most probably slavery or something, but not war).

Iran didn’t agree to all US/Israel points. Iran felt that they have leverage and can resist. (On the other side, Iran’s leverage/power was not obvious enough to US administration, so US started the war hoping to win quickly).

Guerrilla groups fight because they believe they can win / make s difference, not necessarily in military sense. e.g. Vietnam didn’t win the war on the battle field, US got politically exhausted/tired and retreated (non-military victory is still a victory)

In all cases groups that fight believe they can win somehow eventually. Brainwashed suicide bombers, also believe (less due to ambiguity, more due to brainwashing part)

I’m metric all the way, but if it would use metric, it still should unambiguously state: C

Math and computers have benefit of not needing materials. Add a button here, add lema and assumption there - all are almost zero cost&risk. So iteration/experimentation with llm in hand is possible to some degree even for laymen.

I assume virus creation is more like building a house. It involves physical work and chemical reactions that need time to finish in correct order. Each attempt costs a LOT more of time&money and involves actual risks.

Gasoline and lighters are abundant. It takes only slight steering mistake to drive into the crowd. Yet we are still here.

Yes, terrible stuff happens, but they are extreme outliers. Not sure how this works, but we can trust strangers to quite a high degree.

I have no experience in the matter, but surely designing viruses is not a simple affair. (In any profession, having a blueprint is not the same as having knowledge, equipment and practical experience; if somebody would try, my bet would be that they would die during early stages of the process, due to inexperience of handling hazardous materials; kind of like Mr Darwin looks after us)

My personal opinion, this doom-mongering about LLMs, is part of marketing campaign to exaggerate LLM capabilities. (Play being: Sociopaths with money will buy or invest if they believe LLMs are powerful things)

“Technically correct" means a statement or action follows strict rules or exact facts precisely, even if it ignores the wider meaning or real-world intention.

I think op was also actually-correct. (For better or worse, that is the objective reality; Musk still has lot of fans)

> awful lot of money into legalising CSAM

Could I ask what you have in mind (I doubt there was a US bill for that; google won’t help me without knowing what to look for)

Hate is too strong a word for me personally.

But lying (e.g. “full self driving next year”) and cheating (too early inclusion of spacex into various indexes) and whatever dogde was, should explain most of it.

Connections with other disliked characters doesn’t help either.

When reading human comments, we should be generous; when we read corporate texts, we may assume paltering.

(TIL: paltering: exact and technically correct statement usage to create misleading impression)

As with all press releases I assume it was written/re viewed/redacted by their lawyers, so:

> no specific user data was accessed in order to solve this problem

Data was accessed in order to <other purpose> (and then accidentally used in training) Also, is llm’s answer to the prompt actually “user data”?

> We did not use their prompts or proofs …

So they used llm’s answers to those prompts.

> … to prompt our models or directew our agents.

So they trained the model on it. (Training is not prompting and plain model is not an agent)

3-3 invasion takes teritory at the expense of influence (future potential).

I think I improved a lot when I stopped 3-3ing (it opened up different style of game for me)

Noobies love 3-3 (I definitely did), because it’s kind of simple and familiar move. (Especially at the start of the game, when board is empty, there is gadzilion of possibilities and most of them unknown and possibly risky)

If not discouraging 3-3, I would still recommend starting without it, to learn that way of play (if for nothing else, to deal with 3-3 invasions)