Readit NewsWe're high-performing, diverse, tight-knit team with a mission to radically improve mainstream science and maths education at schools. By creating the best lessons in the world, coupled with intuitive tools that allow teachers to take advantage of the latest pedagogies, we’ve already helped millions of students in Australia get excited about science and maths.
45% of Australian science students in years 7-10 use Stile. Help us scale from 500k to more than 5 million students across Australia and the US over the next two years!
We now have offices in Melbourne, Boston, Portland and more! We're primarily hiring in Melbourne (relocation assistance and visa sponsorship available), but there will be lots of travel opportunities.
We're looking for a bunch of new roles right now (not all on our jobs site yet; please reach out if you're interested even if you don't seem to fit a specific role!):
- Engineering manager
- Full Stack Staff Engineer
- Platform engineer
- ML/AI engineer
- Automation engineer
- Principal+ engineer
- Frontend engineerI asked 2 things.
1. Create a boilerplate Zephyr project skeleton, for Pi Pico with st7789 spi display drivers configured. It generated garbage devicetree which didn't even compile. When I pointed it out, it apologized and generated another one that didn't compile. It configured also non-existent drivers, and for some reason it enabled monkey test support (but not test support).
2. I asked it to create 7x10 monochromatic pixelmaps, as C integer arrays, for numeric characters, 0-9. I also gave an example. It generated them, but number eight looked like zero. (There was no cross in ether 0 nor 8, so it wasn't that. Both were just a ring)
What am I doing wrong? Or is this really the state of the art?
Trying two things and giving up. It's like opening a REPL for a new language, typing some common commands you're familiar with, getting some syntax errors, then giving up.
You need how to learn to use your tools to get the best out of them!
Start by thinking about what you'd need to tell a new Junior human dev you'd never met before about the task if you could only send a single email to spec it out. There are shortcuts, but that's a good starting place.
In this case, I'd specifically suggest:
1. Write a CLAUDE.md listing the toolchains you want to work with, giving context for your projects, and listing the specific build, test etc. commands you work with on your system (including any helpful scripts/aliases you use). Start simple; you can have claude add to it as you find new things that you need to tell it or that it spends time working out (so that you don't need to do that every time).
2. In your initial command, include a pointer to an example project using similar tech in a directory that claude can read
3. Ask it to come up with a plan and ask for your approval before starting
Even a simple prompt like this:
=
I have two potential solutions.
Solution A:
Solution B:
Which one is better and why?
=
Is biased. Some LLM tends to choose the first option and the other prefer the last one.
(Of course, humans suffer from the same kind of bias too: https://electionlab.mit.edu/research/ballot-order-effects)
You just want the signal from the object level question to drown out irrelevant bias (which plan was proposed first, which of the plan proposers are more attractive, which plan seems cooler etc.)
Just one question: does the power supply have a 220/240v option (I'm in Australia)?
Another way to phrase this is LLM-as-compiler and Python (or whatever) as an intermediate compiler artefact.
Finally, a true 6th generation programming language!
I've considered building a toy of this with really aggressive modularisation of the output code (eg. python) and a query-based caching system so that each module of code output only changes when the relevant part of the prompt or upsteam modules change (the generated code would be committed to source control like a lockfile).
I think that (+ some sort of WASM encapsulated execution environment) would one of the best ways to write one off things like scripts which don't need to incrementally get better and more robust over time in the way that ordinary code does.
> because omniscient-yet-dim-witted models terminate at "superhumanly assistive"
It might be that with dim wits + enough brute force (knowledge, parallelism, trial-and-error, specialisation, speed) models could still substitute for humans and transform the economy in short order.
I've never seen this question quantified in a really compelling way, and while interesting, I'm not sure this PDF succeeds, at least not well-enough to silence dissent. I think AI maximalists will continue to think that the models are in fact getting less dim-witted, while the AI skeptics will continue to think these apparent gains are in fact entirely a biproduct of "increasing" "omniscience." The razor will have to be a lot sharper before people start moving between these groups.
But, anyway, it's still an important question to ask, because omniscient-yet-dim-witted models terminate at "superhumanly assistive" rather than "Artificial Superintelligence", which in turn economically means "another bite at the SaaS apple" instead of "phase shift in the economy." So I hope the authors will eventually succeed.
I'm bullish (and scared) about AI progress precisely because I think they've only gotten a little less dim-witted in the last few years, but their practical capabilities have improved a lot thanks to better knowledge, taste, context, tooling etc.
What scares me is that I think there's a reasoning/agency capabilities overhang. ie. we're only one or two breakthroughs away from something which is both kinda omniscient (where we are today), and able to out-think you very quickly (if only through dint of applying parallelism to actually competent outcome-modelling and strategic decision making).
That combination is terrifying. I don't think enough people have really imagined what it would mean for an AI to be able to out-strategise humans in the same way that they can now — say — out-poetry humans (by being both decent in terms of quality and super fast). It's like when you're speaking to someone way smarter than you and you realise that they're 6 steps ahead, and actively shaping your thought process to guide you where they want you to end up. At scale. For everything.
This exact thing (better reasoning + agency) is also the top priority for all of the frontier researchers right now (because it's super useful), so I think a breakthrough might not be far away.
Another way to phrase it: I think today's LLMs are about as good at snap judgements in most areas as the best humans (probably much better at everything that rhymes with inferring vibes from text), but they kinda suck at:
1. Reasoning/strategising step-by-step for very long periods
2. Snap judgements about reasoning or taking strategic actions (in the way that expert strategic humans don't actually need to think through their actions step-by-step very often - they've built intuition which gets them straight to the best answer 90% of the time)
Getting good at the long range thinking might require more substantial architectural changes (eg. some sort of separate 'system 2' reasoning architecture to complement the already pretty great 'system 1' transformer models we have). OTOH, it might just require better training data and algorithms so that the models develop good enough strategic taste and agentic intuitions to get to a near-optimal solution quickly before they fall off a long-range reasoning performance cliff.
Of course, maybe the problem is really hard and there's no easy breakthrough (or it requires 100,000x more computing power than we have access to right now). There's no certainty to be found, but a scary breakthrough definitely seems possible to me.
Now I'm trying to stop myself from finding an excuse to spend upwards of $30k on compute hardware...