It’s not a rubric I’m checking off for interviews. And in person it’s more straightforward to assess a candidate than questioning if they are using any aids over video… whats your point?
He made the point clearly, stop dodging the question...
Readit Newsanon_e-moose commented on AI Broke Interviews yusufaytas.com/ai-broke-i... · Posted by u/yusufaytas
Unfortunately the winds are not blowing in your preferred direction. We are being shown time and time again and in increasing frequency that being an asshole is the best way to succeed.
That short-term individual success is at the expense of the wider long-term success.
If 10 people live in a lake and I fish more than everyone I will be better off that others. But then everyone else will seek the same individual short-term success because my first step in being an asshole was not punished. We will all end up starving in this scenario. A central authority agreed by all to manage this situation fairly is the way out. Rules agreed to in common beforehand and enforced by a neutral party.
Is there any downside to requesting data brokers delete your personal data?
If you reach out to them you're risking validating that the data they already have is somewhat accurate, plus they might demand more information from you.
What do you get back from giving that?
anon_e-moose commented on Auf Wiedersehen, GitHub github.blog/news-insights... · Posted by u/ben_hall
He got replaced by AI?
Maybe he did not embrace AI enthusiastically enough...
https://www.businessinsider.com/github-ceo-developers-embrac...
Analogies are just that, they are meant to put things in perspective. Obviously the LLM doesn't have "senses" in the human way, and it doesn't "see" words, but the point is that the LLM perceives (or whatever other word you want to use here that is less anthropomorphic) the word as a single indivisible thing (a token).
In more machine learning terms, it isn't trained to autocomplete answers based on individual letters in the prompt. What we see as the 9 letters "blueberry", it "sees" as an vector of weights.
> Illusions don't fool our intelligence, they fool our senses
That's exactly why this is a good analogy here. The blueberry question isn't fooling the LLMs intelligence either, it's fooling its ability to know what that "token" (vector of weights) is made out of.
A different analogy could be, imagine a being that had a sense that you "see" magnetic lines, and they showed you an object and asked you where the north pole was. You, not having this "sense", could try to guess based on past knowledge of said object, but it would just be a guess. You can't "see" those magnetic lines the way that being can.
> Obviously the LLM doesn't have "senses" in the human way, and it doesn't "see" words
> A different analogy could be, imagine a being that had a sense that you "see" magnetic lines, and they showed you an object and asked you
If my grandmother had wheels she would have been a bicycle.
At some point to hold the analogy, your mind must perform so many contortions that it defeats the purpose of the analogy itself.
anon_e-moose commented on Ask HN: Have you ever regretted open-sourcing something? · Posted by u/paulwilsonn
> Ok, but corporations also lie to and defraud their employees all the time. In ways large and small.
That's 100% true, and lamentable. But two wrongs don't make a right. And while one can't control the company's behavior, a person can control their own behavior. As such, it is perfectly reasonable to criticize them when they choose to act without integrity.
> while one can't control the company's behavior, a person can control their own behavior. As such, it is perfectly reasonable to criticize them when they choose to act without integrity.
That leads to a society where people are punished and corporations are not, simply because they are too big to be criticised.
Much more often than people, large and publicly quoted corporations end up becoming inherently evil.
The total self-serving lies made by individuals will always be a drop in the ocean when compared to the self-serving lies of a single S&P500.
They're both wrong, but the real issue here is to start by criticizing and correcting the corporations, not the people. Once it feels like a drop in a glass of water, we can start thinking of criticizing the people.
Competing against someone means advocating for yourself instead of them.
Nobody would ever advocate against themselves - that's self-destructive. So, following the golden rule, competition is immoral. You shouldn't advocate against others, because you wouldn't do it to yourself.
More concretely, when you compete you are trying to take money away from other people and give it to yourself. Right? Because a customer could go to them - but you want the customer to go to you. So you get 5 bucks your competitor wouldn't have.
What we're noticing here is one of two things: either the golden rule is not at all a rule, and we have to make exceptions, or capitalism at a conceptual level is immoral.
One of these two has to be true, no way around it. Personally, I suspect Jesus would never allow capitalism. He would say everyone should share, so everyone can be prosperous.
Again... sounds like communism to me.
If your competitor is lazy and grows to accept more money for less quality that is immoral. The moral thing to do is to compete against that company so that you provide better products and services for lower cost. That is the moral thing. Communism is neither here nor there, it's a completely different thing. Happy now?
> love your neighbor as you love yourself
This is just communism. If everyone did this, you would have a community-based economy and society. Communism.
The sheer idea of competition is antithetical to this world view. Because you would never compete against yourself - but you MUST compete against your neighbors. You would never advocate against yourself, either.
Look, it's a nice idea, everyone hold hands and sing Kumbaya. But it's not a Christian thing, Marx figured this out much more concretely. Like, he thought about the actual economic and political consequences of it.
And, I don't know, maybe it could work. But I think it's important we're all on the same page about what we're asking for.
That has nothing to do with communism, go educate yourself, and actually try
> But does anyone else get embarrassed of their career choice when you read things like this?
What specifically is embarrassing about it? None of these questions seem especially hard, and they're exactly the sort of problem that I face on a daily basis in my work. They're also fairly discussion based rather than having one silly trick answer (like the XOR trick that came up recently here). The whole point of an interview is to check that the candidate can do their job. What would you propose instead? We don't bother to interview and just cross our fingers and blindly hope they'll know what they're doing?
I can only assume that the real reason for your objection is that your job actually doesn't involve solving problems like these ones. Well, that's fair enough, and then I'd expect the interview for your position to look different. But why would you assume that there are no jobs that really need these skills?
Your comment about using a CSV file for a database seems unrelated. Maybe I missed the real point of your comment?
> None of these questions seem especially hard, and they're exactly the sort of problem that I face on a daily basis in my work.
Really? Do you invert linked lists all day? When the last time you had to traverse a binary tree? Genuine questions. I'm sure there has to be a mismatch between what we define as "those questions".
> They're also fairly discussion based
They're also performed wildly differently with no standards at all. I've had good coding interviews with the coding as a starting point for a conversation. But I've also had it super strict on rails, interviewer silent and just expecting you to one-shot the optimal path. The latter is particularly great at hiring professional interviewers rather than actual professionals at the job.
> does anyone else get embarrassed of their career choice when you read things like this?
On the contrary, it makes me proud. In private equity, medicine, or law, if you have the right accent and went to a good school and have some good names on your resume, you can get a job even if you're thoroughly incompetent - and if you're a genius but don't have the right credentials you'll probably be overlooked. In programming it still mostly comes down to whether you can actually program. Long may it continue.
Leetcode has nothing to do with actually programming a project that lives long enough to deliver value.