jpleyden98

> The good thing with velocity is that it doesn't care which way you're going as long as you're going there fast, so you can never be wrong

Velocity famously being a vector with a direction. Go in the wrong direction you'd have negative velocity.

Your description would be better for the concept of speed (IE the magnitude of velocity or directionless velocity).

> Then you eliminate the managers and designers and eventually you end up with star-trek-esque programming where some C-level person is just telling their computer "I want a website that sells widgets. Good! Now make the navigation bar blue. Could you make the font bigger?"

Those C-level people won't want to do that. Plus in a competitive economy everyone else can do the same so there will be competition to remain relevant.

1 website won't be enough, you'll need 10 and each site needs 10 times the features or your buyers will look elsewhere.

At the end of the day the C-level person delegates to a techy person, it's not the C suites job to care about font sizes or navigation bar colours.

> Human games are still important for the advancement of chess

Are they? Why?

For a human vs human game sure but at the very top level? No of course not because it's all done by AI.

> Only if it is in the training data.

This is trivially not true, as how has AI managed to become better than humans if the knowledge of how to do so never existed in the training data.

We are well past AI can't do X unless X is in the training data. If your claim were true then AI could never surpass human expertise in any field because by definition all the available training data will at best be at the current human frontier and not beyond.

> I am saying because chess is primarily a human vs human game, humans will always be learning and playing chess, their games will add to the chess knowledge base

I guess I'm contesting that idea you are putting forward that the data from the games these humans are playing, which are at a vastly lower level that the top AIs are meaningfully important for helping the AIs to improve at the top level.

Would more people learning their times tables be helpful for top mathematicians in their fields to get better at the frontier of maths? Probably not right. Same applies here.

Would AIs advance at the same rate for the top level of chess in a world where humans completely stopped playing chess vs the world we have today. I would say they would as the human level data is of limited value to the frontier which is dominated by AI and AI game data, you are claiming that it does.

> But programming is not primarily a human vs human activity so there is a risk programmers will forget how to code and all software will be stuck in 2022 because of the training data, this stifles innovation.

Does it? Or will AI be able to run its own experiments and find better/more efficient abstractions that propagate because they are better and this will find its way into training data for future AI.

Just reading this there appears to be 2 problems.

1) The size of task the AI has been given to do appears to be too big, which is why it looks like a roadmap/aspiration. You can ask it to implement a single feature or even a single part of a feature. Just keep cutting the size of the tasks until you become comfortable with it.

2) You like plans in a particular way following data structures/data etc. have you actually told the models this. It doesn't magically know. For the record the fact that the models focus on the end behaviour covered with tests is the way to to it imo. The actual implementation is less important and can be refactored as you wish fairly easily with the AI with the tests ensuring the feature still works.

I do agree though that the current SOTA models are very keen to just implement absolutely everything straight away without explaining/exploring properly. You can customise it fairly easily by using the various skills/agent/claude files to remember your preferred workflow, imo the agents adhere to theses better than they used to even just a few months ago.

> Sure, but that instance of AlphaGo is still dependent on its training, its intelligence, so it is a question of is that the best and only way to win a game of Go.

If this were true then it would be impossible for these models to ever exceed the top human level as there would exist no training data that allows them to exceed the top human level.

However, despite there being no training data on ability to beat the top humans these models have achieved it.

> this is why it is important for humans to always have an intimate connection with the code, math, science, chess etc for progress to continue.

This is just you wanting to remain relevant rather than actually based on evidence.

> Chess/Go continues to progress because it is primarily a human vs human activity, people will always be learning to play chess and chess will continue to develop.

AIs are not continuing to get better at chess/go because humans continue to play at levels far below themselves who discover new techniques. They get better because they play against other AIs and discover new techniques that have a higher win rate that way.

I would bet that even if humans stopped playing chess/go and people were still willing to run these AI models against each other they would continue to get better.

> People instead focus on understanding, because history has taught us that understanding tough problems in mathematics finds natural applications elsewhere.

If the goal is still eventually the applications elsewhere, we're back to what happens if the AI is simply better at this.

You can probably make an argument that human understanding is better as humans are better at finding new patterns or fundamental new ways of thinking and also applying them to new applications.

However, what if AI becomes better at humans for that as well?

No reason you couldn't have an AI be optimised for advancing basic research and understanding and a second AI to take these results and optimise for finding new applications for these discoveries.

Upfront cost is dropping and as electric cars become popular their used car market will increase.

Unless the AGI is able to develop effective defences to intercept an incoming nuclear attack.

Presuming the EU just appeared out of thin air in 1992/1993 and ignoring the predecessor organisations which were crucial for the formation of the EU is just wrong.

It's also not just about WW2, europe had at that point been at major war with itself in some form or another for well over a thousand years with only very brief periods of peace.

Of course by the 1990s it wasn't top of peoples minds because there had been peace for nearly 40 years, which is testament to the success of the original project, it doesn't mean the original goals had disappeared.

Put the watermarked version head to head with the non-watermarked version.

If you can't tell which one is better then how can you make any assumption about performance?

For all you know performance is the same.

So many people complaining about something they quite literally have zero evidence for.

I haven't had time to watch the video but my understanding was a lot of the Louisiana coast have big problems with rising sea levels and much of it in the process of falling underwater. Perhaps it's relatively trivial to reinforce the coast for the forseeable I don't know.

The plans for the site involve extracting significant amounts of natural gas to make methane to burn for the rocket fuel. If they hit the launch levels they suggest (thousands of launches per year), this is not a small amount of greenhouse gases they'll be emitting which of course helps accelerate melting of the ice caps and rising sea levels, which could threaten the very site they've built it on.

This just isn't true. Chinas emissions peaked back in 2024.