furyofantares

Remarkably the source is so small I can just post it here.

> Let's write our own YouTube clone based on whatever videos have been recommended on Hacker News.

As a game designer the answer is very obvious: That's hard work!

As a heavy LLM user there is another obvious answer: The LLM is very good at copying.

I suppose those are two sides of the same coin. All the hard decisions and all the creativity is already done.

Those aren't the only options though. I've long told people that want to get into game dev that the best thing to do is mod their favorite games. I'm hopeful that the technical ease to do that now leads to a lot of human creativity being expressed.

I did misspeak by saying production, but the context was google products and I mentioned size thrice.

Production was probably the wrong word - I really mean size and complexity of the project.

A replacement for a complex UI that would take a human developer 6 months to do is indeed something I would consider a small project at this point.

They simply aren't as useful for production stuff as they are for little projects.

They are useful! Just not the 1000x return you get on a tiny thing or the 100x return you get on a small thing.

The problem is sharing it to a group of people who mostly aren't paying for it. It's a good way to get a thread that's just people reacting to the title, which drives HN toward just being a discussion board instead of a place to find good content.

I don't trust LLMs to give me numbers like this, and it's not just that it might make a mistake on the number or it might have garbage in its context - it also might just not understand the mildest nuance in its context or apply any common sense.

I recently asked what percentage of ice cream is air. It told me up to 100%. When I followed the sources, as I always do and not just with silly answers like that, the number in its context was indeed up to 100%. There's an industry term called overrun, measured in percentages. But 100% overrun means it's 50% air.

So why would I trust any of these numbers in this obviously LLM-generated and probably LLM-researched article?

I guess it is slightly clever, if you feel like slipping out posts, to make them anti-AI. Really blunts the effectiveness of criticism of putting slop out when the slop agrees directionally with the criticism.

It's extremely inaccurate to say 80% of the gamblers were convinced because that's not how it works at all. Each bet has someone on the other side of it - 50% of the people bet on Bolsanaro and 50% against.

If you bet on 20% chances and they happen 30% of the time you make money. The payoffs are such that you win by being a better predictor than the market. I'm fine criticizing it as a gambling blight (not to mention a corruption payoff) but it is also a prediction market.

20% happens about 1 in 5 times. I know that's snarky wording but 20% shots come though constantly in daily life.

I think as humans we are really bad at intuition about probabilities, and it being an election only makes it much worse. I don't think anyone is consciously conflating these with poll numbers but percentages of voters are the numbers we see a lot more than prediction markets, and 80% is idunno an 80% chance of getting between 50% and 54% of the vote or something.

The only other post on this blog is "Anything connected to the internet is going to get hacked to pieces." I'm not claiming any contradiction but it is funny.

I think there is a possible future where "I" am a talking cucumber, though?

Ignoring that you have to give up a sense of personal identity at this point, there is nothing in the laws of physics that says the matter that makes up what we're presently calling me can't morph into a talking cucumber with a brain with my memories in it. It's just absurd number of extremely specific things that have to happen out of an ever more absurd number of possible things to happen.

For most things I find medium to be the highest quality output. However if I want it to do spatial reasoning or if I want it be funny / write something (not code) of almost-passable quality, then xhigh is where it's at.

Yeah.

System 2 is slow because it is sequential. Every output depends on all the prior outputs. Like a transformer. (Even if this comes about as the result of massively parallel processes, both in the brain and in the model.)

System 1 is more of a parallel thing, operating on the output as a whole rather than in sequence. Much more like diffusion.

I wonder if you could exfiltrate some weights, and gt them to do inference.