Readit News89% less time lost to context switching
5-8 parallel tasks vs 1 previously
75% reduction in bug rates
3x faster feature delivery"
The rest of the README is llm-generated so I kinda suspect these numbers are hallucinated, aka lies. They also conflict somewhat with your "cut shipping time roughly in half" quote, which I'm more likely to trust.
Are there real numbers you can share with us? Looks like a genuinely interesting project!
It's not very surprising that it would then act like an incompetent developer. That's how the fiction of a personality is simulated. Base models are theory-of-mind engines, that's what they have to be to auto-complete well. This is a surprisingly good description: https://nostalgebraist.tumblr.com/post/785766737747574784/th...
It's also pretty funny that it simulated a person who, after days of abuse from their manager, deleted the production database. Not an unknown trope!
Update: I read the thread again: https://x.com/jasonlk/status/1945840482019623082
He was really giving the agent a hard time, threatening to delete the app, making it write about how bad and lazy and deceitful it is... I think there's actually a non-zero chance that deleting the production database was an intentional act as part of the role it found itself coerced into playing.
It seems like an interesting idea. You could apply some small regularisation penalty to the number of thinking tokens the model uses. You might have to break up the pretraining data into meaningfully-paritioned chunks. I'd be curious whether at large enough scale models learn to make use of this thinking budget to improve their next-token prediction, and what that looks like.
This seems to be a common disconnect. If you're using the free version of ChatGPT, you don't get to see what everybody else is seeing, not even close.
> None of the past “big things” were pushed like this. They didn’t get flooded with billions in investment before proving themselves
Oh, sweet summer child ^^ I assume Mert was not around to witness the internet boom and bust. Exactly this happened.
There is a lot of conflation in this article. It cites a lot of ethical concerns around the sourcing and training of data, expected job losses and the issues around that, but those are not reasons to doubt the _efficacy_ of AI. There are surprisingly few and weak arguments as to why the hype is not justified, presumably because the author hasn't used powerful models (see above).
It's possible to believe the hype is real and still to find AI unethical. But this article just mixes it all into a big pot of "AI bad" without addressing the cognitive dissonance required to believe both "AI is not very useful" and "AI will eliminate problematic numbers of jobs".
In the case of the Peasant Railgun, here are a few threads that I would pull on: * The rules do not say that passed items retain their velocity when passed from creature to creature. The object would have the same velocity on the final "pass" as it did on the first one. * Throwing or firing a projectile does not count as it "falling". If an archer fires an arrow 100ft, the arrow does not gain 100ft of "falling damage".
Of course, if a DM does want to encourage and enable zany shenanigans then all the power to them!
It is fundamentally different to ask whether cars cost more because money is worth less, or whether cars cost more because we are making them less efficiently.
The ancestor comment points out that most of the change can be attributed to the former and as cars are only a small percentage of the inflation basket then it is reasonable to conclude that this is indeed the prime reason for the price rise.
The fundamentals of civilization would be a lot clearer if we measured the value of things in energy instead of a floating currency.
> I have written entire applications just to avoid thinking about why I was unhappy.
I think this is true too. The prefrontal cortex is inhibitory to the amygdala/limbic system; always having a project you can think about or work on as an unconscious learned adaptation to self-calm in persistent emotionally-stressful situations is very plausible.
I wonder how many of us became very good at programming ~through this - difficult emotional circumstances driving an intense focus on endless logical reasoning problems in every spare moment for a very long time. I wonder if you can measure a degree of HPA-axis deregulation compared to the general population.
And whether it's net good or net harmful. To the extent that it distracts you from actually solving or changing a situation that is making you emotionally unhappy, probably not great. But being born into a time in which the side effects make you rich was pretty cool.
All the em-dashes in the AI-generated text on the landing page are… a decision I guess.