cjkaminski

I did what I could... but there were many complex issues involved with development, as you might imagine.

Remember when Elon announced a humanoid robot by using a dancer in a robot costume? Seems reasonable that he would have some "technical assistance" to make his stage show look great. No idea if it was cables or not, but reasonable people can doubt the veracity of the theatrics.

I hear what you're saying. I often tweak the CLAUDE.md file to improve the quality of its output. It's an ongoing experiment.

As for "humans writing the docs", you raise a good point although it's not quite what I imagined when I wrote that line. I was thinking more about having the LLM/Agent create a list of verified output by humans with reputations as experts in whatever field interests you. This is important when pushing the boundaries of research, although it's overkill for wanting to know whether or not a new technology could be useful in your existing project (or the next one).

What use case did you have in mind when you brought up the docs situation? Sounds like you had some direct experience with that one.

Excellent points. I agree that frontier models get things wrong all the time. They are NOT oracles. I believe that we need to encourage our peers to become sophisticated operators of these systems, instead of treating the output like Moses and the 10 Commandments. Perhaps we need more specialists, because the major AI labs lack the incentives to venture down the long tail of knowledge. Agents can be a piece of the learning puzzle, despite their imperfections. Again, thanks for your reply. It gave me lots to think about.

Honest question: What is preventing you from understanding any part of the stack now?

You could potentially ask an LLM to explain it, but I would venture a guess that wouldn't feel like the right source to help you. You could use the LLM to help you identify source material written by humans in order to learn anything new. It doesn't have to "do all the work for you".

Modern AI systems are powerful. They are not omnipotent or omniscient. Understanding the details is still valuable, especially if you want to push the frontier of any known field.

In any event, the situation isn't hopeless. At least not yet. :)

I have 20/20 vision and this presentation hurt my eyes. I'm glad my browser has "reader mode" to normalize things like this. I'm not trying to yuck someone else's yum. I simply appreciate the technical ability to read someone else's post in a way that doesn't cause discomfort.

Politicians are lazy, sure. I also believe that hearing sustained and prolonged resistance to X as a communication platform will make a difference. It's real grassroots effort.

Yes, yes! I might be old enough to remember when that happened.

Okay, how did I break the guidelines per your assessment? I'm genuinely curious.

Because they are both part of the SpaceX Company. They are intimately tied together.

Excellent question. My definition is admittedly qualitative. I spend a fair bit of time listening to commentary by people who are connected to policy decisions at the state and federal level (in the USA). An unusual amount of people admit to relying upon X as their barometer of public sentiment, despite their intellectual understanding that Elon Musk has his thumb on the scale. Most of them have admitted they understand the "water has been poisoned" but they also claim that all alternatives are inferior. This might not apply to YouTube as much as the others, but I haven't seen evidence that disproves this theory. I'm open to the possibility, for sure. This said, I believe that Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, and TikTok have a profound affect on large swaths of the population. The evidence I observe suggests that X is doing more work among the people who can text someone who makes decisions. Curious to know more about your POV. What am I missing?

Fair points.

I would say that classifying an argument as "silly" without any supporting evidence is borderline ad hominem because it doesn't make a substantive critique of the assertion, and instead colors the character of the opposition. But that shouldn't take away from your position.

As for your suggestion that I am being arrogant, I can see where you're coming from but I also feel as though I'm within the bounds of fairness to push for a reasoned response (instead of an emotional appeal).

All that said, thanks for replying in a way that advances the discourse. Much appreciated.

No, I did not claim "a massive percentage of the population accessed the internet (via starlink)". Try again.

I said that people in REMOTE regions, by which I mean those who are underserved by traditional internet access such as fiber or coax or twisted-pair, are served by Starlink in significant numbers.

Please give demonstrable facts that dispute this claim if you disagree.

How so? Defend your position.

(edit: I genuinely don't understand how your replies are anything other than ad hominem attacks. Your responses are about as effective as a toddler asking "why?" over and over and over again. Either deliver a substantive counter argument or stop replying.)

(edit 2: I assume you are the one who downvoted this reply. That only adds to the factual evidence that you are struggling to defend your position via legitimate means. This isn't a personal attack. I hoped you would engage in legitimate discourse. Please do better in the future.)