incrudible

Where are these 180 IQ models? Even Fable needs guidance so it actually produces output I consider on par with what I could have written myself in a domain I am familiar with, and I am certainly not at the frontier in those domains.

Is it actually better though? Can you even measure it? Unguided, Claude will just produce mediocrity which by its own existence becomes almost worthless, and the newer versions become increasingly difficult to guide while also being obnoxious to read. If I did not have to interact with it, it would not be a big deal, but then also I could not get value out of it.

It is not the jargon per se, it is the style. Other models even in the same family are not as bad, and I still have to babysit it, so the voice matters.

Opus 5 is literally unbearable to read for me, but more importantly, it is much worse than 4.8 and that one was already annoying. The more they train it on its own output, the more pronounced its idiosyncrasies become.

Manufacturers know demand will last to the extent that big companies are willing to commit to purchases over a given period of time, but supply today is still constrained by capacity built for the pre LLM era. The 500 billion put in by Samsung/SKHynix will increase modern DRAM by roughly 50% but it wont be fully online until 2030.

It can definitely create a software stack for you if you hold it right, but the software stack supported by a trillion dollar company with decades of expertise, that also uses AI to improve its stack is probably gonna be better.

People are reading this as a slight against single authors, but it is a slight against the belief that anyone deeply understands complex code they wrote even a week ago. It is just a bullshit belief. Yes, you build an intuition about it, but you need to constantly refresh your understanding. That is just how the brain works.

Now, if you have program that is highly complex, written by a single author who is not you, hinging on the ongoing goodwill and capability of that single author, that is a liability you do not want to have, operationally. Again, that is just how it is.

No codebase worth being deeply invested in is deeply understood by anyone, including the original authors. The eternal maintenance argument is tiresome. If there is a problem in need of fixing, you figure it out, you do not depend on some author being available, and LLMs are exceptionally helpful in this regard as well. Then, if the LLM has trouble figuring out, so will another human. It is a code smell.

Picking a DVD to watch is a rather inconsequential decision. LLMs already do this sometimes, asking you to pick one of a few options, but without domain expertise you will invariably make worse decisions, but if all the n-th order consequences were first explained to you, that would result in you having built domain expertise, but also erasing most of the speed advantage LLMs give you. Moreover, you will never know about the options that are never presented.

Inevitably, this is the new tradeoff to make, above average quality comes from asking for more, and knowing what to ask for comes from expertise.

You are completely off base with your assumption about what it costs to serve models. Nobody is gonna serve you K3 as cheaply as Anthropic is serving you Opus on any of their plans. Nobody has that kind of money to burn. Kimi does not even sell you a plan right now.

That's not how you should use it and LLMs aren't that bad anymore. Either you just accept the quality level of LLM code wholesale, which means accept mediocrity in exchange for volume, or you at least leverage the LLM to improve the process surrounding the production code.

I read it more as pointing out the inevitable and accepting the implications. You can not call it the result of poor practice when every business beyond a certain size has this problem.

Perhaps the problem could be mitigated by keeping the company itself small, but that has nothing to do with programming anymore.

The good RISC-V designs are not free though and the free ones are not good. MCUs are not a category of computer to draw lessons from for the broader market.

In the age of LLMs we can assume that any code was generated by an LLM unless noted otherwise, so I think it is fair to not point out the use of LLMs. However, words like hand built should be reserved for the instances where the code was actually written unassisted. Reading all the code means nothing, there is no such thing as code that was written as if you had written it, unless you have written it.

It is funny that people now instinctively think of AI when encountering slop, as if the slop that the AI produces was not deeply informed by the slop it trained on. Plus, the quality bar on the web has always been low, masking the true capability of LLMs.

This is, again, absurd. According to the definition that a doctor is a person performing witchcraft, do you sincerely believe that a person performing witchcraft is a doctor? Do you sincerely believe that a true statement is true?

Let me then rephrase the question: Do you reject the definition that a doctor is anyone who proclaims himself to be a doctor? This is, again, an absurd definition of what a doctor, a woman, or really anything could be.

So let me broaden it: Not only do I reject this type of definition for doctors or for women, I reject any such circular definition as absurd. You don't?

> You initially claimed that it doesn't matter what "women" means when you ask, "Do you sincerely believe that a person becomes a woman simply by self-declaring it?"

No, I said it doesn't matter to to the point I am making what I believe, except that I reject that particular definition, because it is absurd on its face. I may or may not reject any number of other definitions of "woman", it's besides the point.

As an analogy (futile, I know): There are many definitions of what a "doctor" could be. For example, I can accept the definition that "a doctor is someone has been licensed to practice medicine". I can't accept the definition that "a doctor is anyone who self-identifies as a doctor".

Of course, according to the definition that "a doctor is anyone who self-identifies a doctor", someone who self-identifies as a doctor is a doctor. It's obviously true and obviously absurd.

You should join the tautology club.

> You're making claims about these laws

No, I'm making the claim that any such law conflicts with the position that "the state should stay out of it", obviously. And since you are not even the person supposedly holding that position, I don't even know where you're trying get here.

> You asked me this: "So you reject laws that require people to affirm my gender based on nothing but my self identification?"

I did not. I asked CamperBob2 that, who presumably holds the position that "the government should stay out of it". So unless that is your alt, I think you're missing the point and barking up the wrong tree.

> As I have pointed out above, the word "woman" has different definitions. So if you ask me whether I believe that "a person becomes a woman simply by self-declaring it", then the answer is yes for some definitions of the term, and no for others, like I already explained to you.

"A woman is any person who self-identifies as a woman" is the definition that started this whole subthread, and a self-referential one at that. The corollary of that definition is that anyone gets to be a woman by simply declaring it. So, according to the definition that a woman is anyone who says they're a woman, anyone who says they're a woman is a woman. That's a tautology, so it's obviously true. Check mate, athiests.

> You're still not clarifying what you're actually saying, so I would level the same accusation against you.

What clarification do you need? You can pick any law related to gender identity, and that by definition violates the principle of having the "government stay out of it". And I'm not trying to debate the merits of any such law, I'm trying to get to admit the person in question that they don't actually hold the belief that the government "should stay out of it".

> It would be helpful if you could be more specific.

No, because it actually doesn't matter the point, as outlined above. Again, I'm not interested in a debate on the merits of any such law.

> So if your tactic is to "put me on the spot", I would encourage you to apply this to yourself and genuinely consider what you actually believe, and why you believe it.

You expend a lot of words dodging a simple question: Do you sincerely believe that a person becomes a woman simply by self-declaring it? I don't believe this. I don't think you believe this.

I'm not asking you to define what makes a woman. It doesn't matter to the point what you or I believe makes a woman, except the distinction that it is (or isn't) as simple as declaring it.

There's also money in being an engineer. If he makes so much more money as YouTube rage farmer, then I'd be surprised, but it still wouldn't change my perception of it being degrading work, harmful to his credibility and probably harmful to his mental health too.

You are attempting the same tactic as the other guy: Diversion.

The question was: Do you actually believe that any person becomes a woman simply by self-identification?

The other guy refused to answer, instead proclaiming "the government should stay out of it". Fair, but there are various laws that are being campaigned for, which - desirable as they may be - would be off-limits if you actually believed the government should "stay out of it".

My tactic is to put you on the spot. My suspicion is that neither of you actually hold either of these beliefs. You're not principled in this regard, you merely want to signal that you're "good people", or something along those lines. That is, you're making it easy for yourselves by being disingeneous.

Is that so? So you reject laws that require people to affirm my gender based on nothing but my self identification? That is a right wing position in current year.

This has nothing to do with the belief that a woman is simply someone who identifies as a woman. According to this belief, the following statement is sufficient to become a woman:

I am a woman.

I think this belief is absurd prima facie and would have been recognized as such by virtually anyone, say, ten years ago.

I am not a woman.

Furthermore, I do not believe that you believe I have been a woman while typing out that sentence in the middle. Do you?

DeArrow gives a YouTube page with rageslop that has been marked as rageslop. I do not need an addon to determine that, I need a feed that does not serve it to me in the first place, and that means curating my feed by rejecting certain videos and channels.

And this goes back to my point, if you are a competent engineer, why are you spending time producing rageslop for money, rather than, you know, doing the engineering.

LLMs will tell you, without qualification (like “according to some school of thought”) that a woman is “any person that identifies as a woman”, which is, to say the least, deeply politically biased by recent trends.

Casey (on his channels) does not do the clickbait thing, which makes all the difference. You can either maintain integrity and credibility or you can make brainrot shockface “it is over” content. There is no middle ground.

Maybe you are desensitized to it, but I have a carefully curated YouTube and I know that it can be a completely different platform experience if you reject with prejudice any such content.

If you are a competent engineer already why do you need to create self demeaning clickbait content on YouTube? Narcissism? I aggressively block any such content, because if you click on any of it, you easily get sent down the YouTube spiral of crap.

And yet, they are highly unprofitable. Yes, people pay for the API because it's a frontier model, but it's a frontier model because of billions of capex that are (so far) not getting recouped. And if they stopped the capex on new frontier models, that API revenue would walk off to whoever else does. If, at some point, the entire industry decides to stop burning money and start squeezing customers, that will be the test of which business models actually survive, and in that scenario I am bullish on scrappier shops that can't possible compete on all fronts now.

I build them as separate entry points. And to be clear, esbuild doesn't do everything for me, but the solution is bespoke script, not the whole of something like Vite.