I also randomly wrote some code in a bind yesterday, while I was on the toilet, and it felt so strange. That was the first I'd written in probably 6 months.

You don't even make small tweaks by hand? There's so many things that are honestly faster to do by hand than wait for agents to do.

Nope I'm a couple levels too far removed from the code at this point for that. Closest I get is during meta-management (modularizing, complexity reduction, etc) with agents

AI is far better at security than the majority of security professionals. It is a net positive.

People constantly compare AI to this very rare expert human rather than the reality of who is already employed. Experts like you are a major culprit of this. And it puts you at odds with yourself to both admit the industry is full of subpar workers and then lament that they will be replaced with workers that are better, but still worse than you.

What is wrong with someone to make them think in this manner? Is it just a kneejerk response with little thought? Is it ego? Is it a coping mechanism? I find it very strange and interesting and annoying.

I also don’t like your framing, here.

We need experts to know when AI is wrong, which it is all the time.

Earlier this week someone commented here that we shouldn’t expect a language model to know that you need to drive a car to a car wash, to wash a car.

So then, what do we expect it to know? Who’s responsible for when it’s wrong?

Also, why can’t Mythos just fix all these issues itself if it’s so smart. And test them to make sure they work?

> why can’t Mythos just fix all these issues itself if it’s so smart. And test them to make sure they work?

“Why”: because you didn’t ask it. It’s not its job in this case.

You don’t hire an accountant and tell them “why can’t you fix my cash-flow problems and make me money if you’re so smart”

Ah ok, sure. The difference being the model should know how to do both based on what I’ve been told.

So why didn’t Anthropic ask it for me?

for a cost, and so not handled perfectly at all. at least google doesnt charge us to harvest us like kagi does lol

1970 called

Hey my encyclopedia had yearly updates through 2008!! :D

But seriously, its actually nicer... and the equations on the back covers don't randomly change to crap every fourth time you open the book.

Why dont you want AI?

ill take ai search over blog and seo-infused search any day

As he said, its just a learning curve and you are behind on it. Dont use AI mode use perplexity or gpt for your search. its far superior to traditional search, just slower. The quality of your prompt also matters. Im pretty annoyed by those like you who hide and mask their ignorance behind anything they can grasp to cover themselves. It's transparent to most but yourself. Ignorance i could forgive, but not the dishonesty.

definitely not needed if you're in the middle-man slime trades (law)

In an advanced economy everyone’s the middle man for something. We’re not self sustaining agrarian farmers anymore.

what do you think software devs do all day

create value and utility without purposely gatekeeping and hamstringing society

You're fooling yourself if you think newspapers and news media in general haven't always been about attention-baiting.

Sure, if it bleeds it leads. But I've been a news consumer since the 1980s and a reader of the NYT almost as long as it's had a web site. It is my strong impression that its headlines have gotten noticeably worse. The main one that annoys me, and I don't actually see an example of it on the main page right now, is the teaser headline that forces you to click through to know what the article is even about[^1].

Edit: here's an example. Headline on the front page is "A Chaotic, Confusing Campaign: Here’s Who Should Be the Next Governor of California". Makes it sound like you're clicking through to an endorsement, right? Nope, the article is actually a voter guide. It's a completely misleading headline.

[^1]: You can often inspect the URL to see the original descriptive headline before the clickbaiters got to it which makes it even more annoying.

If you want to be reductive then everything is already the same. Music is 99% the same chords, art is 99% the same colors, etc... Or you can argue from good faith and actually learn or teach.

Your argument can be used to discredit all arguments, including itself. Because your argument is made only of the same letters as all others (let's stay in English, without losing generality), it is the same as all others, and thus it has no discernible point.

Note that it's you who introduced this reduction, not the GP.

The reduction i introduced... was satire. Whoosh . It helps to read the thread before knee jerk responding