infamia

And a magician making a coin "disappear" doesn't mean that magic is real. I see no way we can call it thinking without a goal (other than computing the next token).

It sounds like your app is using a lot of dynamic techniques like meta-programming? If so, that makes a lot of sense. Most of the apps I've seen use very little use of meta-programming and friends and incremental typing worked rather well.

Unless you're doing something really dynamic, I don't really understand this position and would like to learn more. for most cases gradual typing is a great option that can be done incrementally in Python (two things even cheap agents are really good at).

If you're looking for "Hot Dog/Not A Hotdog" type (i.e., heavily bounded) answers from LLMs, make certain to at least consider (or better still benchmark) traditional AI and machine learning approaches against LLMs. The traditional approach is almost certainly less computationally expensive and might work better for your problem than an LLM. I recall hearing stories from people on a popular podcast, that they benchmarked and went with the traditional approach because it was more accurate, deterministic, and cheaper. Many had always wanted to try traditional AI/ML, but only got the go ahead recently to add AI to their project from management because of the AI/LLM hype. They were surprised to find that when they benchmarked, the traditional approaches outperformed LLMs both in terms of accuracy and cost. Don't get fixated on LLMs to the point of ignoring older tools that might do a better job.

No one knows how many bugs claude has because Anthropic auto-closes Issues (or at least used to) if there isn't someone constantly pinging the issue every two weeks. I've contributed to several issues that were confirmed by several other people, which were they were auto-closed after people gave up confirming the problem without any response from Anthropic. They seemingly don't care if it isn't on fire or at least smoldering heavily, which seems really bad in my book if you're trying to make even reasonably good software.

> Heavens. Is it possible you're reading into it a bit?

Perhaps, which is why I hedged with the possibility that it is mere hyperbole. However, I think what did it for me was his statement that he provides and expects feedback to anyone not following this recipe, which is at utterly without nuance. Incidentally, you can execute with focus and intention without urgency and arguably be more effective over the long haul.

My point is that after a large change, reversion to the mean should not be treated breathlessly, but viewed in a measured manner.

> Before the 2024 Carbon Pollution Standards, the federal limits were much weaker—and for existing power plants, there was effectively no operative federal CO₂ limit at all.

This is an exaggeration that stretches credulity, since there have been strict limits for decades around secondary outputs that are required by power plant energy production effectively limiting production and emissions (which is the entire point).

> Something that people learn quickly when they work with me is that my approach to pretty much every problem is: > ... > 6. Act with urgency to achieve the goal

If everything is urgent, then nothing is. This guy sounds miserable to work for and with. Assuming this is accurate and not just hyperbole, he is essentially saying he has no prioritization skills because everything is urgent. I think most people who have been around the block have worked with people like this, and unbeknownst to them, their coworkers develop a default snooze button associated with most of their requests and projects.

This headline is rather sweeping considering the modest nature of the change, which is merely rolling back regulations to 2024 levels.

In the long run a planned economy is a huge disadvantage, the Soviets and now the the CCP are prime examples. For instance, the CCP is also sitting on a bunch of practically empty metropolises, paired with a property bubble and a falling population (all of which are exist to their meddling).

> The ADA isn't some surprise gotcha that crept up on any of these people

The ADA was written in an extremely non-specific way that allows unelected bureaucrats to reinterpret it every so often. To be honest, the US would probably have a more accessible society if the law was better written.

> I do not usually have every word I will respond with stored in my limited working memory. My output is often predicted based on the previous word I spoke.

People don't know exactly the words that they're going to say necessarily, but tend to start with a general concept of what they're trying to communicate and only then try to put together the words (sometimes out of order). LLMs do not begin with any sort of concept they're trying to express. LLMs are simulations that attempt to reproduce what an average person might say while wired up to a huge knowledgebase.