Noted, reviewed, and understood. I'll be more mindful. Sorry for getting caught in the moment.
126 karma · joined August 5, 2024
1. Maybe you should tell us what those limited experiments are.
2. Maybe you should actually try 3.6 because it's huge difference in most cases. Don't forget to tell us quants and don't forget to tell us scope.
3. Maybe actually show us data compared to frontier models instead of this... vibe comment. Pretty tired of this kind of comments on HN that doesn't require logic or evidence. Just vibes. Like the pelican riding a bicycle crap that everyone has taken for granted but has no objective way of assessing goodness.
If they really cared to much about empowering people creating things for other people, like others have pointed out, they should just ban it.
Sure, in reality it's not so easy to just ban AI content because there is a spectrum of it and it's really not a clear-cut problem.
But your stance can be clear-cut, and in this messy world where there is no perfect solution one way or the other, your stance matters even more. You could either be seen as a fence sitter who allowed slop to happen, or someone who stands with human creativity battling against shitty people and their slop.
Please stop this kind of fence-sitting reasoning if you care about people.
I don't understand the logic in this. Before AI, if a job was crazy popular and a lot more people got involved passionate or not, it's still _people_ doing things at the rate limit of _people_? Even people with disproportionately large amount of resources to do things they still had to hire the _people_ who can do the job to do it? How is that anything close to the issues presented in the article?
Passion also has nothing to do with being professional. You can do a job extremely well by being professional but not at all passionate about it, and you can be extremely passionate about something but absolutely terrible at doing it as a job. The labor force requires you to be professional, not passionate. Great if you get to be both because you are the lucky few.
Nothing against you personally but that kind of logic is getting old. I get it that you don't trust corporations but asserting it like open source projects don't do rug pulls, and like having the source because you can spin up the version you even if they screw you over means it's safe is missing the point of how we all function as a society.
The problem isn't open source or corporations to begin with or someone made the mistake of trusting someone who seemed trustworthy to begin with, and people who take the opportunity to push their own beliefs and narratives by capitalizing on emotional situations like this instead of finding constructive ways to make things better are the worst.
Luck with your employer also plays a big part in how you approach this too.
Maybe just don't do that? It's never helpful in good-faith discussions and just indicates a lack of empathy and maybe a lack of understanding of the actual issue being discussed.
> So, you haven't identified any actual problems with them being on social media though.
The problems GP raised seem pretty clear to me. Could gives us some examples of what you would consider to be "actual problems" in this context?
> Just that kids are doing something new and sometimes scary...
Any sane parent wouldn't send their kids to learn to ride a bicycle on the open road and without any supervision. You'd find a park or an empty lot somewhere, let them test it out, assess their ability to deal with potential dangers and avoid harming others at the same time, and let them be on their own once they are able to give you enough confidence that they can handle themselves most of the time without your help.
The problem with today's social media for children is that that there is no direct supervision or moderation of any kind. Like many have pointed out, social media extends to things like online games as well, and the chance that you will see content that are implicitly or explicitly unsuitable for children is extremely high. Just try joining the Discord channels of guilds of any online game to see for yourself.
Not all things new and scary come with a moderate to high risk of irreparable harm.
> Definition: A gaming dark pattern is something that is deliberately added to a game to cause an unwanted negative experience for the player with a positive outcome for the game developer.
And also the detailed descriptions of each of the dark patterns, for example:
https://www.darkpattern.games/pattern/12/grinding.html
Quoting just the short descriptions of the dark patterns without considering the definition above is effectively mischaracterizing the intent of the website and not using the tool as intended, and all the patterns seem like they can be/are just enjoyable mechanics to many.
Some of the users reviewing games on the website seem to also miss the point (inaccurate reviews), which leads to comments like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45947761#45948330.
It is increasingly often the case in predatory games that a very subtle combination of the mechanics listed make them dark patterns collectively, so it's also important to consider the patterns in groups.
I personally don't see what the use case of this is -- you shouldn't even be hired in the first place if you can't even describe the changes you made properly.
My largest project is a year old, it's full-stack JavaScript, and I consciously use patterns, structures, and diligently add documentations right from the beginning for the code base to be as LLM friendly as possible.
I see great results on refactoring with limited scope, scaffolding test cases (I still choose to write my own tests but LLMs can also generate very good tests if I explicitly point to existing tests of highly related code, such as some repository methods), documenting functions, etc. but I'm just not seeing the kind of quality that people claim that LLMs can do for them on complex tasks.
I want to believe that LLMs are actually capable of doing what at least a good junior engineer can do but I'm not seeing that in my own experience. Whenever we point out these issues we are encountering, we just basically get the "git gud" response with no practical details on what we can actually dp to get the results that people claim to be getting. Then people start blaming our lack of structures, patterns, problems with our prompts, the language, our stack, etc. when we complain about the "git gud" response being too vague. Nobody claiming to be seeing great results seems to want to do a comprehensive write-up or, better still, a stream of their entire workflow to teach others how to do actual, good engineering with LLMs on real-world problems either -- they all just want to give high level details and assert success.
On top of that, the fact that none of the people I know in engineering working in both large organizations and respectable startups that are pushing AI are seeing that kind of results naturally makes me even more skeptical of claims of success. What I'm often hearing from them are mediocre engineers thinking that they are being productive but actually just offloading the work to their colleagues through review, and nobody seems to be seeing tangible returns from using AI in their workflow but people in C-suites are pushing AI anyway.
If just about anything can be "your fault", how can anyone claiming that LLMs are great for real engineering without showing evidence be so confident that what they're claiming but not showing is actually the case.
I feel like every time I comment on anything related to your blog posts I probably came across as belligerent and get down voted but I really don't intend to.
Some people in this thread are already interpreting that policies that allow contributions of AI-generated code means it's OK to not understand the code they write and can offload that work to the reviewers.
If you have ever had to review code that an author doesn't understand or written code that you don't understand for others to review, you should know how bad it is even without an LLM.
> Why do you care? Their sandbox their rules...
* What if it's a piece of software or dependency that I use and support? That affects me.
* What if I have to work with these people in these community? That affects me.
* What if I happen to have to mentor new software engineers who were conditioned to think that bad practices are OK? That affects me.
Things are usually less sandboxed than you think.
There is nothing inherently different about these policies that make them more or less difficult to enforce than other kinds of polices.
That's not what the GP mean. Just because a community doesn't disallow something doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.
> I also try to mitigate the code review burden by doing as much review as possible on my end
That's great but...
> & flagging what I don't understand.
It's absurd to me that people should commit code they don't understand. That is the problem. Just because you are allowed to commit AI-generated/assisted code does not mean that you should commit code that you don't understand.
The overhead to others of committing code that you don't understand then ask someone to review is a lot higher than asking someone for directions first so you can understand the problem and code you write.
> If your project has a policy against AI usage I won't submit AI-generated code because I respect your decision.
That's just not the point.
* How the colors were picked and assigned to each category and (e.g. at what point is red pink and no longer red)
* An indication of distribution in charts, they have different scales on the y-axis.
* The author likely sampled posters with mostly the same color above a given threshold for each category, would that (together with the lack of methodology and error bars) heavily skews the reader's presentation of the data analysis?
Reading your comment, it sounds like you are actively sabotaging yourself by convincing yourself that you shouldn't just try (perhaps due to a subconscious fear of rejection). How do you get an audience if you don't actively promote your work and/or try to sell them?
There is no guarantee that you will "succeed" (whatever that looks like to you — success could mean having a lot of people appreciate your work and/or selling your art for lots of money) if you try your hardest but if you don't try you will never succeed at all. I'll break down the second last paragraph as an example below.
> I'd love to sell it online, but without an audience, no one will visit.
Audience don't just suddenly appear because you have created something. You need to put in the effort to create an audience to begin with.
> I could sell it at https://www.saatchiart.com, but they don't really market most of what they have. You have to drag people there.
You need an incredible amount of luck for people to just "discover" your work and just suddenly like it (especially with abstract art?), so having need "to drag people there" is just what you should do if you want exposure for your work whether or not you host them on saatchiart.com.
Don't fall into the trap of "if you build it, they will come".
Focus on creating a compelling narrative behind your art and keep iterating to attract a small, loyal audience first (1000 people is already a lot).
> Plus they take 30% or 40% (50% is normal for galleries).
This is irrelevant if nobody knows your work and would buy them to begin with. It's just another excuse to not try. By the time this is a problem you can migrate to something more personal. Many people that support independent artists want the artists they like to get more money from them.
> Locally, in the right location, people see your art, and stop by. It's just the pain of setting it up, and then sitting there while you wait!
I enjoy engaging with artists at markets because the personal connection with them is actually the most valuable thing for me and the most compelling reason for me to make purchases. I also appreciate the artists who show up consistently at related events particular those who remember me well, which also becomes a reason for me to introduce their work to my friends.
Good luck with your work and I hope you will find success with it! ^^
I visit new websites all the time because of HN and Reddit, and without JavaScript many sites just don't work or look too broken for me to want to read anything. Unless we collectively decide to stop using buttons instead of anchors for navigation and stop having external, unrelated JavaScript blocking the actual site (that, sometimes funny enough, doesn't require JavaScript to function), it's not going to get any better.
I went through a phase where I think JavaScript is bad and have used CSS instead of JavaScript for a lot of things (mostly because I enjoy writing CSS). The thing is if you have ever tried developing any substantial and moderately complex feature for an actual product with CSS instead of JavaScript, while keeping them readable, maintainable and scalable, you will realize that they are good for different things and talking about them in a mutually exclusive way isn't helpful.
Both CSS and JavaScript are constantly evolving, I agree with you that there are now things that we should do with CSS instead of JavaScript and increasingly more so.
If you have read the blog post it's a difference between the chemical symbol Ge and Gr, which as I understand is what you would refer to as a "semantic error".
People make mistakes and you probably mean well but this is also the sort of pass given that makes scientific research and reporting terrible.
If it's "easy enough to figure out" then it's even more important to get it right -- why should we trust someone who can't even get the "easy" things right?
> ... and dyslexia already exists among scientists.
The article is pointing out a problem that appears to be fairly common, is that really a suitable explanation? Even if it is a suitable explanation, is that a reason for lowering standards, which you can then apply to explain away every mistake?
Keep in mind that proper publications should usually have been reviewed by at least 3 people including the authors (typically more) by the time everyone else gets to read it. So that kind of mistake isn't really acceptable.
> What I think is more dangerous to understanding is skipping formulas in favor of initials! BFO instead of BiFeO3, or BT instead of Bi2Te3, SRO for SrRuO3, LSFO for La0.3Sr0.7FeO3 abbreviations that I think obscure too much detail. You can more easily wander into talking about different things with the same terms. Such abbreviations are already endemic in condensed matter physics.
If you have been trained in scientific writing, you would always introduce an abbreviation. For example, "BiFeO3 (BFO)" and "SrRuO3 (SRO). It's also common to include a list of abbreviation in some forms of scientific writing.
This is gold. :)
I find that interesting. That has always been the case at most places my friends and I have worked at that have proper software engineering practices, companies both very large and very small.
> AI can already write very good code. I have led teams of senior+ software engineers for many years. AI can write better code than most of them can at this point.
I echo @ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7's opinion. For well defined refactoring and expanding on existing code in limited scope they do well, but I have not seen that for any substantial features especially full-stack ones, which is what most senior engineers I know are finding.
If you are really seeing that then I would either worry about the quality of those senior+ software engineers or the metrics you are using to assess the efficacy of AI vs. senior+ engineers. You don't have to even show us any code: just tell us how you objectively came to that conclusions and what is the framework you used to compare them.
> Educational establishments MUST prioritize teaching code review skills
Perhaps more is needed but I don't know about "prioritizing"? Code review isn't something you can teach as a self-contained skill.
> and other high-level leadership skills.
Not everyone needs to be a leader and not everyone wants to be a leader. What are leadership skills anyway? If you look around the world today, it looks like many people we call "leaders" are people accelerating us towards a dystopia.
Then why not say "mostly didn't work"? I read the article and that's the impression I got.
The OP's comment isn't an outage, it's more like you intentionally painted it as an outrage with a comment that reads more like an outrage.