Porn was never that accessible at that speed.. there is nothing like it before... you don't know what you are talking about.
People downvoting me, thinking porm was available 10k years ago..are watching porn while commenting.
Readit NewsDead Comment
aogaili commented on Porn censorship is going to destroy the internet mashable.com/article/age-... · Posted by u/Teever
aogaili commented on Porn censorship is going to destroy the internet mashable.com/article/age-... · Posted by u/Teever
How did porn destroy a generation?
Porn has always been around.
It will easily outlast the idiots writing these laws.
> The Wheel: 6000 years old
> Porn: 42,000 years old (Hohle Fels “Venus”)
Porn was never that accessible at that speed.. there is nothing like it before... you don't know what you are talking about.
aogaili commented on Porn censorship is going to destroy the internet mashable.com/article/age-... · Posted by u/Teever
More like porn destroyed a generation.
The flood of AI content, social media, and confused articles is destroying the internet.
aogaili commented on AI doesn't lighten the burden of mastery playtechnique.io/blog/ai-... · Posted by u/gwynforthewyn
It will be coming for me some day soon I'm sure, but I'm no more humble than I was before so far. (extremely humble!!!) I don't talk about it too much on here, as it would be useless, but I haven't gotten too many positive results out of the AI-assisted coding tools. And yes, I know I'm holding it wrong.
I think you are not the type I'm referring to.
But again for me, the appeal for software was creativity. Our ability to shape ideas and experiences.
I never cared about proving my intelligence or arguing about syntax. If the code is maintainable, readable, and works, all good. But I corporate, I was debating over PRs, mostly subjective opinions, a form of intellectual game..
And the issue, discussion is all about convention and trivialities..
aogaili commented on AI doesn't lighten the burden of mastery playtechnique.io/blog/ai-... · Posted by u/gwynforthewyn
Interestingly, a lot of the engineers I know are hoping for the exact opposite. They're hoping that AI will humble the business, management, product types.
The way they see it, AI can easily shit out a hundred product concepts, market research, slide decks, sales emails, reports, etc. No need to bring on MBAs or self-proclaimed visionaries or LinkedIn gurus.
I think both camps will be disappointed. The engineers will be disappointed that they'll still need vapid business/product people to keep them pointed at projects that will actually put food on the table. The business/product people will be disappointed that they'll still need sanctimonious engineers to make anything actually work.
Well, real business is more than slides and content, just like real product development is more than coding.
Yeah, those who were creating sophisticated business models on Excel, fancy slides, etc, yeah, they will also get humbled.
aogaili commented on AI doesn't lighten the burden of mastery playtechnique.io/blog/ai-... · Posted by u/gwynforthewyn
I'm probably one of the people you're talking about.
I'm feeling basically mostly fulfilled in life, and don't feel my life is being wasted.
I didn't understand the thing about "AI made sure they knew as well", or maybe I'm not actually who you're describing.
But I definitely get into language, syntax, frameworks, parsing, and blah blah blah.
Plenty of people still play chess. Plenty of people still run. Machine performance has surpassed humans long ago in both disciplines. Are those people stupid also?
Yes, for me, it is a form of narrow intelligence. Being unable to grasp the big picture.
I don't mean this offensively; it is what it is. If you are aware of who you are, then good, but if the issue is that a lot of those are not even aware of their strength or their limitations. Just like humans got humbled with chess, AI is humbling those coders.
aogaili commented on AI doesn't lighten the burden of mastery playtechnique.io/blog/ai-... · Posted by u/gwynforthewyn
AI will hopefully humble so of the people I work with.
The people who understand nothing about business, yet you can't talk to because they think gifted for being able to write instructions to a computer.
The people spin out new frameworks every day and make a clusterf*ck of hyped and over-engineered frameworks.
The people who took a few courses and went into programming for money..
I went into software because I enjoyed creating (coding was a means to an end), and I always thought coding was the easiest part of software development. But when I get into corporate work, I find people who preach code like religion and don't even care about what is being produced, spend thousands of hours debating syntax. What a waste of life, I knew they were stupid, and AI made sure they knew as well.
aogaili commented on Can large language models reason? arnaldur.be/writing/about... · Posted by u/Hugsun
My argument here is that the discussion of LLMs reasoning is a semantic question, not a technical or scientific one. I specifically didn't use "flying" because both airplanes and birds fly, and "fly" generally means "move through the air" regardless of method.
Swim means "move through water" but with the strong connotation is "move through water in the way that living things move through water". Submarines move through water but they do not swim.
Reason means what -- something like "arrive at conclusions", but with a strong connotation of "arrive at conclusions as living things do", and a weak connotation of "use logic and step-by-step thinking to arrive at conclusions". So the question is, what aspect of "reasoning" is tied to the biological aspect of reasoning (that is, how animals reason) vs. a general sense of arriving at conclusions. Don't try to argue a definition of "reason" that is different than mine -- doing so makes it immediately apparent that we're just playing with semantics. The question is "what observable behavior does a thing that we all agree can 'reason' have that LLMs do not have?". And the related question is "to what degree does humans' ability to 'reason' reflect our ideal conception of what it means to 'reason' using logic".
Both the statements "LLMs can reason" and "LLMs cannot reason" are "not even wrong"[1]
I use LLMs daily in coding and it very clear to me (as a humble average thinking machine) that it is an approximation of reasoning and very close one. But the mistakes it makes clearly shows that this system does not really understand, it is not very different from the mistakes those who memorized text do. Humans, when they really think, they think differently. That is why, I would never expect the current architecture of LLMs to come up with a something like special relativity or any novel idea, because again it doesn't not really reasonn the same way deep thinkers, philosophers do. However, most knowledge work does not require that much depth in reasoning, hence LLMs wide adoption.