kristiandupont

I wrote a linter for schemas (Postgres only): [link redacted]

I've found it to be a pretty useful way of establishing patterns for data modelling in a team.

Cursor is at $100m ARR. People (users, not just investors) are giving them money, not because they expect to see value in a couple of years.

>they’re not a product

I think it's pretty fair to say that they have close to doubled my productivity as a programmer. My girlfriend uses ChatGPT daily for her work, which is not "tech" at all. It's fair to be skeptical of exactly how far they can go but a claim like this is pretty wild.

>I saw someone saying 80% of doctors believe that LLM's are trustworthy consultation partners.

See, now that is something I don't know why I should trust: a random person on the internet citing a statistics that they saw someone else say.

>can we stop pretending with the generic name for ChatGPT?

What? I use several LLM's, including ChatGPT, every day. It's not like they have it all cornered..

You may be able to boycott it now, but I am pretty sure there will come a time where that's not feasible if you want to participate in society, the same way it's no longer feasible to "boycott the internet".

I just tried these with ChatGPT (4o) and it got both of them right. That's not to say that you won't be able to find something that still works but I think that particular hole is closing fast.

>The alternative to regulation is innovation

That's a very easy but hand-wavy thing to say.

How exactly would your suggestion work? Are the companies supposed to share their findings from this forced research with the world? What happens if they happen to discover something that doesn't help with the plastic problem but does improve their bottom line somehow? I can't see this functioning in any way whatsoever.

>there are still many questions which a human can easily answer, but even the best LLMs currently can't.

I am genuinely curious: what is an example of such a question, if it's for a person you don't know (i.e. where you cannot rely on inside knowledge)?

lol

Sure. I just think that we will be looking back at that as a horribly inefficient and expensive way to accomplish something that will be much more advanced soon.

Most people here seem concerned about insurance companies misusing personal data or a full-on totalitarian government takeover. However, my concern is about becoming susceptible to manipulation and coercion. A significant aspect the last election was the use of "Super PACs" like Elon's which targeted individuals on social media to influence their decision.

I think this trend will continue, not just in politics but across all sectors. The internet you experience will be tailored to your personality completely, but it will also be shaped to steer you in directions decided by who pay the most. The more data they collect about you, the more effective this manipulation will be.

This doesn't even account for the risks posed by malicious actors who might target you using this information.

Right, so your argument is that this is easy, and if it turns out that it's not, we'll just be smug and tell them that they were holding it wrong all along?

It sounds like you are picturing in your head that all spreadsheet work is greenfield. Do you have any idea how much Excel code is embedded everywhere? Very often made by people who are no longer around. You can lecture all you want, but this is the situation. I don't like it either.

If you have a spreadsheet with macros that are anything more than the most basic, you can't run it in Calc. It's not that trivial.

That's true, but conspiracy theorists are not typically out on some philanthropic mission. It's a hobby -- they are doing it because conspiracy theories are fun. That's why they aren't actually interested in things where there is real, tangible evidence. They want to find hidden clues and feel like they are in the know.

Of course, there is a very fine line between that and actually realizing something that the world doesn't see, but that's part of what makes it fun.

The new administration are talking about revoking birthright citizenship. I can see why a mere visa holder would be concerned.

Is there a way to delete all your tweets from X afterwards?

You could have said the same about Ukraine. Assuming rational (even if transactional) moves from dictators seems naïve.

>It seems we are pushed into major conflicts

>so her friends can build expensive tanks that will never see a battle

I am not sure how you consolidate the two statements. It seems to me that there is a very real risk of armed conflict in Europe over the next decade.

>But you are fundamentally "fighting the last battle"

In your opinion, what is the current/future battle, then?

>infrastructure, databases, data engineering, stats

Why would those areas be less exposed to the "LLM threat"?

Maybe you like this one better: https://www.shadertoy.com/view/lsX3W4

A related "existential" observation that I had when exploring these as a teenager: what's further in always seems exciting. Then, when seeing it up close, the appeal immediately disappears, only for the new "far away" bits to appear more interesting.

Apologies, I should have added the marker.

Right, porn causes trafficking while hate speech is so-called and the worst that can happen is that some people get offended.

Yours is a political standpoint, not an ideological one. Which is fair, but don't pretend it's not.

I have no data on enforcement but since it went into effect, every place I've worked has taken it very seriously so it has definitely had consequences, very positive ones in my opinion.

Occam's razor helps identify which hypothesis to test first, it doesn't state some truth.

Put them in numbered containers at the start of the experiment.

Oh come on! Studies about supplements over time are almost always "poorly controlled" because you have to ask people to do something while living their lives.

Also, N=1 experiments can absolutely be interesting and give us ideas for further study, even if they don't say anything about a population.

In spite of the confidence you're stating this with, it sounds like a serious over-simplification of a very complex dynamic.