drcxd

Which means, they have to value human lives higher than LLM servers.

Not really. Jev is NOT a HUMAN.

Interesting, recently I am working on my own clone of Pac-Man. LLM implementations lose lots of details. They are not 1:1 replication of the original game. For example, the behavior of the ghost is not the same as the original. If I have not implemented the game myself, I can not tell the differences. What LLM produced look like the original game, but they are not.

It feels like understanding is no longer required to produce code, as long as the program can pass the tests. Also, most software rarely causes severe real world damage, so it simply requires less guarantee and quality than other engineering such as buildings, bridges, etc.. With LLMs, code is just like cars, it carries you to your destination, you do not have to understand how it works.

You can't call people lazy because they use LLMs, just like you can't call people lazy because they travel by train/plane/cars instead of their own feet.

Where is the real hacker community then?

Yeah, it's just how you see programming in your perspective.

It's like lifting weight. Obviously, machines lift weight much better than human for a long time. But people still trains for strength or aesthetics. Even if machine can lift much larger weight and more efficiently, some people still care about how strong they are.

A machine can lift much more weight obviously is not the excuse for them to stop training.

Programming is just the weight lifting for your brain/mind. Even if LLMs can solve all coding problems perfectly, there will be people who still want to program all by hands, for training their mind, or simply enjoying the process. And there will be people care about how good you are at solving a problem with programming.

LLMs being able to code does not mean you no longer need the ability to code.

Cars do not mean you no longer need the ability to walk.

Me literally searching for emacs in the webpage.

Nobody notices that all the messages are labeled "5:42 pm"? From the proposition of the idea to the the review of the PR. This of course is impossible. I mean, even AI bots can understand and implement the features that fast, it is impossible for your human colleagues to notice your message and respond in the same minute. So, this image is also generated by AI?

Assume you build a machine that can simulate some system 1:1. Then it means the machine is exactly the same as the system, and the cost of running it will no less than the system itself.

If you want to reduce the cost but still get something useful, you have to make some abstraction, and we all know that any abstraction is leaky.

A leet-code style automated assignment is like a test. We all did tests in school so I guess most people do not feel there is anything wrong about that.

However, an interview, which should be conducted by human, but instead by something AI pretends to be human, would make most of the current human beings feel disgusted, naturally.

Is there any formal proof that an AI conducted interview yields more than a pencil & paper test? Or is there any scientific research about that? I doubt there would be any in the near future. Then using such AI conducted interviews is simply a belief.

You miss read. The parent thread said: > the women has am easier time not to commit and just sleep around That's for women. The second time they mentioned sleep round: > Dating apps are available, statistically women all try to get into a relationship with the same 1% of men - who sleep around and cause toxicity all around. They mean the 1% of men are the ones who sleep around. Also, I think it is better to interpret "sleep around" as the state of having non-committed sex relationship with non-marital partner. It is a description of a fact rather than an accusation. Though the words may sound harsh.

In my opinion, reproduction is based on the idea "borrowing against the future", or Ponzi Scheme, because reproduction is based on the idea that "we would have a better future", but in fact, we will not.

Yeah, and if there really is any boilerplate thing, can't we programmers come up with a more deterministic solution, like a framework? I don't know.