Canadian software engineer living in Europe.

  • 13 Posts
  • 373 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 7th, 2023

help-circle

  • He compared an LLM to a compiler suggesting that the concerns about using them are the same as suggesting that everyone should write in assembly.

    The comparison is invalid, since one mode is deterministic, while the other is not.

    LLM-driven development leads to programming via the abstraction of the model, disconnecting you from the source to the point where you don’t understand what it’s done or why. He’s suggesting that this isn’t a problem because an LLM is just like a compiler, which suggests that he’s arguing in bad faith or doesn’t understand the “tools” he’s using.









  • and I don’t see any value in limiting classification to the domain level. How would one classify wikipedia.org in this scenario? Would it not make more sense to define an open standard that’d leverage this system but allow domain managers to define it themselves?

    To take my university.tld as the example, that university might host a file called at https://university.tld/ocs.json that looks something like this:

    {
      "/": "EDU"
      "/math": "MAT",
      "/journalism": "JOU",
    }
    

    (Heads up to OP: there’s no journalism in your current spec. That feels like an oversight.)

    This would allow the high-content site admins to classify parts of the site differently. The /ocs.json file might even be dynamically generated for complex sites like Wikipedia.



  • You’re making a lot of assumptions that have yet to be backed up with evidence. There have been a lot of inventions that people claimed were revolutionary and “here to stay” that have since been confined to history has a bad idea: blockchain and NFTs most recently, asbestos & DDT somewhat further back. Just because boosters like yourself have drunk the kool-aid is not sufficient evidence for your claim.

    But that’s beside the point. The Canadian government doesn’t need to pour public funds into “AI” for it to succeed. Indeed if it’s as revolutionary as you claim, the public will spend their own funds or demand their taxes cover it… but they aren’t, are they? The public overwhelmingly hate it save for base entertainment. That’s not revolution, it’s very expensive porn, temporarily subsided by billionaires.

    The cost of “AI” is astronomical, and I’m not just talking about the finances. The environmental cost is civilisation-crippling, and the benefits produced so far amount to [checks notes] a net loss in the hundreds of billions of dollars, stolen culture, skill atrophy, loss of agency, oh! and psychosis.

    Put the kool-aid down friend and try looking at this more objectively. It’s a non-solution for a problem we don’t have that’s causing incalculable harm. Public money should not be funding it.