Just click the x at the top right of the interstitial?
That only work for a few articles per month. But usually opening in incognito does the trick.
Readit News"Attention Is All You Need" - I've always wondered if the authors of that paper used such a casual and catchy title because they knew it would be groundbreaking and massively cited in the future....
I recommend reading this article which explains how you can get your papers accepted, and explains that a catchy title is the #1 most important thing: https://maxwellforbes.com/posts/how-to-get-a-paper-accepted/ (not a plug, I just saved it because it was interesting)
iLoveOncall commented on Flunking my Anthropic interview again taylor.town/flunking-anth... · Posted by u/surprisetalk
Well, that's different. If it's a super challenging take-home, with requirements that exceed 1 page, then yeah, I'd agree. Most take-homes that I've received have been super simple, though. And they're usually not the first step, but the final step, in my experience.
Simple does not mean short. I can give you a one line take-home assignment that will take a lifetime to build.
In any case, if it exceeds one or two HOURS, it's too long. And I have never seen a take-home assignment that did not.
(some companies pay for your time for take-home assignments, obviously that changes everything)
iLoveOncall commented on Flunking my Anthropic interview again taylor.town/flunking-anth... · Posted by u/surprisetalk
> That's the point at which I would have stopped the process personally.
Why is that? I love take-home assignments. At least, if it's just an initial get-to-know-you interview, and then the assignment. What I utterly despise is the get-to-know-you interview, then a tech interview with the entire dev team, then a take-home, then a meeting with the CTO.
I will never, ever, ever go through with any job that has an interview process like this again. I always ask up-front what their interview process is like.
Because it's time theft?
Why would I spend 4 hours (in the best case scenario, otherwise days) on the very first step of the application process, where, regardless of my resume, I have an extremely high chance to be rejected, while the company puts literally no time in?
iLoveOncall commented on Flunking my Anthropic interview again taylor.town/flunking-anth... · Posted by u/surprisetalk
> take-home assignment
That's the point at which I would have stopped the process personally.
iLoveOncall commented on Building your own CLI coding agent with Pydantic-AI martinfowler.com/articles... · Posted by u/vinhnx
I really wish Pydantic invested in... Pydantic, instead of some AI API wrapper garbage.
I've been using it a lot lately and anything beyond basic usage is an absolute chore.
iLoveOncall commented on Some thoughts on LLMs and software development martinfowler.com/articles... · Posted by u/floverfelt
> One of the big problems with these surveys is that they aren’t taking into account how people are using the LLMs. From what I can tell the vast majority of LLM usage is fancy auto-complete, often using co-pilot.
This is a completely wrong assumption and negates a bunch of the points of the article...
"There are legitimate uses for which AI (or any other technology to be clear) would relieve everyone. Chores that people HAVE to do but nobody WANTS to do."
Ok but what are these? People keep saying right now they are trying to figure out where LLM's fit. Someone, somwhere would've figured it out by now - the world is more interconnected than ever before.
I think the approach with all that is going on is all entirely wrong - you cannot start with the technology and figure out where to put it. You have got to start with the experience - Steve Jobs famously quipped this and his track record speaks for itself. All I'm seeing is experimentation with the first approach which is costly in explicit and implicit form. Nobody from what I see seems to have a visionary approach.
> Ok but what are these?
Throwing the trash?
I agree with all the rest of your comment. I'm not saying that AI is the solution to any problem, just that the article is not about hating AI, it's about hating the fact that people want you to use AI for specific stuff that you don't want to use it on.
I've noticed that the younger you are, the most likely you're in love with AI. So the tide will turn eventually, for better or worse. I talked to someone recently who claims with no irony that 'AI has zero downside'.
I don't hate AI. I hate the people who're in love with it. The culture of people who build and worship this technology is toxic.
It's not about age, it's about experience.
I think we could get the average life expectancy up to 100 if we did a better job of all the preventative things:
* Prevent airborne disease by having all indoor spaces getting 50 air changes/filters per hour.
* Prevent waterborne disease by having all tap water RO treated in homes, and by heating all shit up to boiling point before it leaves toilets.
* Large scale animal and human trials of every chemical used in daily life to find those things like a pacifier which gives you cancer 60 years later. It is far better to do an 'unethical' trial of a chemical than the current system of just putting it in all products and going bankrupt later.
* Prevent spread of other diseases like the common cold with daily covid-like lateral flow tests for everyone, with the government bringing you food and paying you to stay home if infected with any spreadable disease.
* Work on many more vaccines and give them out for free to the whole world to eliminate more diseases like we did with smallpox (that vaccine has saved around 800 million lives).
* Dramatically reduced effort on individual treatment (cancer, care homes, etc) by putting a 200% tax on healthcare, and funnelling that money into preventative things so the next generation doesn't get the health issues at all.