dolni

Thousands or millions of times less energy used is a whole lot better for the environment, too.

You weren't present to speak to how she pushed back on "hey you guys" in the example I provided.

She was, without a doubt, offended.

I've watched a woman walk into a space to meet her group -- all of whom were women -- and address the group with "Hey you guys!"

I've also worked with a woman who was extremely displeased to be greeted with "you guys". I found her absolutely insufferable.

The reason it feels bad to people who use "you guys" in a gender neutral way is what it says about the offended person. The offended person has a pet peeve, and if you don't accommodate it, it will be a problem. That's pretty much the definition of an insufferable person.

A person who is well-regulated wouldn't make a stink over something so trivial. Which then tells you that the person is going to make a similar stink over other trivial things. Ad infinitum.

If a client sends its game inputs and those inputs can be analyzed for legitimacy, I think you could make some decent progress on this problem.

It doesn't solve all methods for cheating, and it doesn't prevent cheating. But it does help you remediate it.

Are game companies training AI models to detect aimbot-like crosshair movement, for example?

Human beings act in accordance with their genetics and life experiences. They do this to such a degree that people can, at a young age, internalize maladaptive behaviors which require an enormous level of self-reflection to overcome, if they even can.

I think presuming that humans don't act "as instructed" is a bit too generous an assumption.

LLMs are capable of declining to do things. They're also capable of trying to do things and getting them subtly (or very) wrong.

A lot of this hinges on defining consciousness. I think there is more to the story than what human beings experience.

Do LLMs have an experience very similar to human beings that we would describe as consciousness? No, I don't think that.

I think the bar for consciousness is something more like experiencing a dream. You have a "mind's eye". The experience of existing, rather than nothing. Does that exist somewhere under an LLM? I don't know, but I think confidently claiming that the answer is no seems a bit of a rush judgment.

I think that you are defining consciousness in such a way as to exclude everything which is not the human experience by default.

When I go to sleep, I dream sometimes. There is "a place" somewhere that I can see and hear things in my mind. It's not physical, but it's real.

If a collection of GPUs had something like that, would it be conscious?

I don't know that is true. I'm saying it seems absurd to strongly claim that it is absolutely false.

Why are you so convinced it isn't conscious?

Our brain is matter and electrical signals. So are GPUs. We're just not made of silicon.

Because some things are politically incorrect to say.

If those things are left unsaid and everyone still understands what's being referred to (even generally) there can be some alignment on the issue.

Some people with ideological axes to grind like to pick fights on particular points, even (perhaps especially) when it is not constructive.

There have been multiple points in my career where I framed a problem as simple in my head, and it mostly was.

But then, one small detail changed everything. And it wasn't something I'd have thought of until I was writing the code.

I shudder thinking about the number of these issues hiding in LLM-generated code.

As a worker, you can exercise your voice... by getting another job. That is your vote.

The power of your vote is proportional to the value you bring.

A while back I threatened to quit because I had a team dynamic that was untenable. I made a management change mandatory.

I got a new boss. The old boss was later terminated.

Agree, not expanding is dumb.

One of the major benefits of a shell-based approach is your env vars could be generated from the output of a command.

Which can be trivially used to populate secrets from whatever your secret store of choice is.

Now we've also cleanly solved secret distribution for developers with one less dependency!

Dotenv is definitely something that should not exist.

Direnv is the right way to go if you want a tool for this. Otherwise dotenv's implementation in bash is essentially `set -a; source .env`. Look ma, no custom parser!

Seems really silly to have a library do what two lines of shell can reasonably accomplish.

> If your goal is to take over the market quick, as many here would like, maintainability is a very low priority aspect of your code base.

It's low priority in the sense that people in charge tend not to value it.

That's different from saying it is not impactful, or wouldn't lead to a good business outcome, if the software were built better.

Software that needs to be babysat is an ongoing opportunity cost.

> The alternative is not to invite people who have no experience to build bridges or perform surgeries.

You state this so confidently, like every person who walks through the door to interview will be 100% honest about their level of experience.

Have you ever interviewed? Nobody _wants_ a software engineer on their team who is awful.

Sometimes they slip through the cracks for a variety of reasons.

It's not science, but also a lot of stuff that purports to be science is not. "Science" is subject to many of the same forces that politics is.

Using your personal experiences and the personal experiences of people you trust as an anchor is a good thing. It keeps you from falling for propaganda. Note that this DOES NOT mean studies conflicting with your personal experience are all wrong.

The tricky part here is understanding the limit of what your own experience can tell you.