parentheses

It seems like pen and paper is currently the best verifiable and immutable voting approach.

I wonder the same thing a lot. I also wonder how AI will fit into this problem.

This is a capability that makes sense to have to use when absolutely necessary.

I think the differentiator is always when governments choose to employ these things.

I really dislike that this is always the argument that's being attacked. It's not even what most people are thinking when they respond.

It's clear that the exchange is privacy for effort. If I want to self host, I need to pay time and money to get it all working, then continue to maintain it forever.

I don't expect AGI or Super intelligence to take that long but I do think it'll happen in private labs now. There's an AI business model (pay per token) that folks can use also.

difflib is probably my favorite one to cite.

Go see for yourself: https://docs.python.org/3/library/index.html

The benefit there is that their quality, security, completeness and documentation are all great!

While the parent comment indicates that a child is possibly overstepping, your comment is a greater overstep.

I realize that you (the 13 year old) probably did not walk this path alone and I'm guessing you had a lot of help. Not sure how much help, but I don't mind giving you the benefit of the doubt today.

Great to see that you're being creative and (at least) participating in making things!

I know that it took a lot of work for my parents to encourage my passions and for me to actually pursue them in earnest. I could have easily gotten lost in being a consumer of media and programs. Instead, I make them and it is very fulfilling. I now have a lot to thank them for and I don't think I'd be here without all their hard work and hoisting me up in my youth. It sounds like you have parents that care that much and for that, you should be grateful and participate in your growth as they do.

More perf means more attempts in parallel with some sort of arbiter model deciding what to pick. This can happen at the token, prompt, or agent level or all of them.

Please please please, get paid rather than holding on too tightly to making things free forcing future enshittening.

I think it's fairly short sighted to criticize these. FWIW, I also did that the first time I wrote Python. Other languages that do similar things provide a useful transparency.

Finance and engineering both have a degree of verifiably. Building evals around finance is easier than, e.g., marketing work.

Just by virtue of being a go program it enables even more sophisticated validation and automation if you want to implement it.

Let's say I used a custom power saw to carve a statue faster than ever before and more precisely. Would that reduce my influence and my application of taste? No. I would in fact be able to produce a piece faster and have more room for making more attempts.

Neural network based art tools are all giving us the same thing - easier execution. This means greater production and the ability to try most possibilities. The fact that creating art is more accessible to the public means that more creatives can be in the arena, making for more competition.

Any creator grapples with this change over time. Woodworkers of old prefer their techniques to modern power tools, painters prefer physical media, carvers prefer real blocks of marble/whatever. All of these things have modern digital equivalents, but the establishment of existing artists refuse to leave their posts. They hold their ground that the medium is critical to the art.

Art moves and changes slowly because of this human bias against new solutions. Go to any museum of modern art and you'll find that most of it could have been executed as such 20+ years ago. It's just that art takes time to accept a new way of doing something.

I am not saying that the mechanism is perfect but it is more useful if we have it than not. IMO it's only weakness is that you never know if a new exception type is thrown by a nested function. This is a weakness for which we really don't have a solid solution - Java tried this with checked exceptions.

Go not using such a paradigm to me is bonkers. Practically every language has such a construct and how we use it best is pretty much convention these days.

You'd miss out on CVEs because you don't use the common dependency paradigm.

You'd also miss out on bug fixes if you are not detecting the bug itself.

Help me understand because I'm with you on less dependencies but this does feel a bit extreme.

My prompts usually resemble actions I could tell a college student — they just have a better understanding of concepts and professional lingo.

The benefit of this approach is that you know the code fairly well. You are staying with the LLM in developing a deeper understanding of the code you'll ultimately create a PR for. Then when there's an incident, you have enough deep knowledge of the code that you can be tactical.

I have found that until I trust AI to develop the code unsupervised, I have to have an equally good mental model of everything AI makes.

I used this during the early pandemic and found it very useful