mercer

I'm not looking forward to president Tucker Carlson :-/

one of my biggest pet peeves is podcasts/youtube videos that would be perfect to listen to while resting, if not for some loud and obnoxious intro/outro music. Or a too-loud background muzak track. If I want muzak I'll go to the supermarket or stand in an elevator.

Adolfler would've been even worse.

bad in relation to what?

wave wand

Since the switch to Wero, I've noticed that I need to do an extra, seemingly pointless click. it's not iDeal!

I imagine they do have 'real solutions' that are a bigger problem to some than their inability to govern is...

sadly, over here in the netherlands and I assume elsewhere, the job as a postman changed drastically when they privatized. room for the human element has been all but squeezed out for profits long ago.

> People can finally put a name on an unease that's been growing inside them for a while now.

I've had some interesting conversations about the pre-AI slop and how the distinction is often not too meaningful. I mean, on some level /knowing/ that the corporate slop was written by a person kind of loses its meaning when one considers the amount of filtering, rules, rewriting, and so on is involved by a string of people who either don't care about what they write or actively dislike it.

A lot of this stuff often had at least flickers of a human soul behind it. I imagine for a lot of the soaps, hallmark movies, and romance novels this might've made some difference, even if just subconsciously recognizing the author(s) and building up some kind of image around the other by yourself or with others.

I'm reminded of some of the truly awful 'worship' songs I grew up with, and how some of the authors (often of course sticking close to the source material) even had a kind of following. some of these songs were just a little 'too' predictable, but others felt pretty much like they were written by AI, except back then none of us imagined that AI could really do this back then.

Or the pastor I spoke to who was convinced that chatgpt had access to his more personal notes, because as an experiment he made it write a sermon, and it (probably? obviously?) extrapolated from the prompt the more specific theology he followed/ascribed to.

I'm not knocking the value of a sermon or song, even if boring and predictable, or perhaps even when AI-written. they often explicitly /don't/ serve the purpose of being novel or new, but I find it super interesting how these aspects of real life are, to a degree, not too hard to replace with AI.

Thankfully for this pastor, most of his value involved human connection, knowing whoever just married, died, got sick, and having his full humanity on display from the pulpit!

I'd say I'm pretty attuned to detecting AI content and I was fooled a few times at inattentive moments. I imagine a lot of people fare worse, assuming they even truly mind whether it's AI or not.

I recall some documentary came out or was announced? maybe that has to do with it?

maybe 42 was just the end of sequence token...

A lifetime is not that long though, and I'd argue that TV was the start of a chapter that internet, iphones, etc. are just ever-increasingly addictive and immediate iterations on.

I'm not saying that we didn't have anything like that before tv, or that specific individuals or groups throughout history might not have had something similar, but I do feel TV, and especially its audio-visual nature, really changed something in a way that, say, the printing press never quite did.

EDIT: and to add, my feeling on how many people seem to use LLM's is that in a way it's extra insidious because it's /tailored/, often 'puerile' interaction.

would it make sense to just go for pandoc instead?

Hotmail is a good example too. I remember it being pretty ubiquitous, at least for the 'personal email' crowd, and it seemed implausible that people would give up on what was often their main email 'location' for another offering without being able to transfer their often important and personal stuff. then gmail came along.

that consideration seems to not have played much of a role so far though?

Do the big updates to Elixir's type system help at all? afaik the most recent update added a huge amount of coverage that should extend to older code automatically.

ngl

in some ways Elixir is a child of Clojure!

> JOSE: Yeah, so what happened is that it was the old concurrency story in which the Clojure audience is going to be really, really familiar. I’ve learned a lot also from Clojure because, at the time I was thinking about Elixir, Clojure was already around. I like to say it’s one of the top three influences in Elixir, but anyway it tells this whole story about concurrency, right?

https://www.cognitect.com/cognicast/120

wouldn't that still add a lot of value, where the person in the loop (sadly, usually) becomes little more than the verifier, but can process a lot more work?

Anecdotally what I'm hearing is that this is pretty much how LLMs are helping programmers get more done, including the work being less enjoyable because it involves more verification and rubber-stamping.

For the business owner, it doesn't matter that the nature of the work has changed, as long as that one person can get more work done. Even worse, the business owner probably doesn't care as much about the quality of the resulting work, as long as it works.

I'm reminded of how much of my work has involved implementing solutions that took less careful thought, where even when I outlined the drawbacks, the owner wanted it done the quick way. And if the problems arose, often quite a bit later, it was as if they hadn't made that initial decision in the first place.

For my personal tinkering, I've all but defaulted to the LLMs returning suggested actions at logical points in the workflow, leaving me to confirm or cancel whatever it came up with. this definitely still makes the process faster, just not as magically automatic.

That's a brilliant short story right there!

!

I have the same experience, but with Snow Crash...

Also don't forget the 'memory' feature. As LLM providers get better at tailoring the LLM to the user, and probably obfuscating the details on how this user-specific memory works, it will be harder to switch to another provider.

I'm somewhat skeptical, but also honestly curious: what game-changing applications came out of the blockchain/web3 hype craze?

I get the impression after using language models for quite a while that perhaps the one thing that is riskiest to anthropomorphise is the conversational UI that has become the default for many people.

A lot of the issues I'd have when 'pretending' to have a conversation are much less so when I either keep things to a single Q/A pairing, or at the very least heavily edit/prune the conversation history. Based on my understanding of LLM's, this seems to make sense even for the models that are trained for conversational interfaces.

so, for example, an exchange with multiple messages, where at the end I ask the LLM to double-check the conversation and correct 'hallucinations', is less optimal than something like asking for a thorough summary at the end, and then feeding that into a new prompt/conversation, as the repetition of these falsities, or 'building' on them with subsequent messages, is more likely to make them a stronger 'presence' and as a result perhaps affect the corrections.

I haven't tested any of this thoroughly, but at least with code I've definitely noticed how a wrong piece of code can 'infect' the conversation.

Is that currently not allowed?

Eschaton was just slop for the masses!

And they recently open-sourced (among other things?) the Oban Web plugin!

Interesting. I'd be mortified if things happened that way here, because I regularly forget to bleep items, and have quite a few time been checked in those cases. the only consequence was some embarrassment and the need to allow the employee to re-check every item. usually they were even apologetic about it.