lelanthran

At the point you starts asking to prove a negative, like "Can you prove that there's no God?", you should have the self-awareness to realise that no argument will convince you, because you are proceeding on the power of belief and belief alone.

If you don't have the self-awareness to realise that you are asking the same question as "Can you prove there's no God?", then I'm afraid no proof will ever be sufficient for you.

> I would expect code written by the latest frontier models with a "find all security issues make no mistakes" pass to be more secure than average human code written in the pre-AI era (not a high bar).

"If you write code as cleverly as you can, you are, by definition, too stupid to debug it."

Do you disagree with this? Because if you don't, then the rate of bugs/RCEs in a completely AI-written-software world will be exactly the same as the rate of bugs in a completely human-written-software world.

A combination of human-authorship + AI-review, with absolutely no AI-written code is going to have the lowest rate of bugs, because there is always one entity who understands the code (because they wrote it) and one entity who is smarter than the author who can find bugs.

The AI-generated code I see from SOTA models is absolute spaghetti, and they start running into problems spotting bugs after even a small number of refinements/changes to the software (say, 50).

The problem with all this spaghetti is that they are quick to write something that even they can't easily read. Even mediocre but experienced humans are not so eager to write something that they can't easily debug.

IOW, for any non-trivial problem, with AI-generated code you are guaranteed to get spaghetti that it cannot understand. With humans, it's only a probability that that will happen.

> No no no, don’t burst that AI bubble just yet. I haven’t finished all my side-projects.

You'll be fine; the GPUs will be sold off for pennies on the dollar, and if you can't run one at home there are plenty of people who will buy them to host for cost of hosting +5% markup.

> The stock exchange is the Adam Smith way of directing the assignation of resources to the most efficient company, and it's supposed to be liquid enough to allow fine-grained decisions.

So? OAI isn't on any stock exchange right now. Their value is not determined purely by supply and demand.

> Why do I sense a schadenfreude here? It's like people are rooting for their failure.

You sound surprised. Why?

After all, they have been selling their product on the basis of driving the value of human labour as close to zero as possible (your labour included). Why wouldn't people want such an endeavour to fail?

> The amount itself is probably meaningless. The fact that there was a shortfall at all is, for me, the signal.

It is a signal, but I am not sure what it is signalling...

It could be signalling that all surplus money has been consumed already (i.e. the investment class has no more money left to invest).

It could signal that the specific class of investment is no longer desirable (i.e. the investment money is there, but has no appetite for token-providers).

It could mean that OpenAI, specifically, is considered not worth committing to anymore.

We should be looking at how the entire class of token providers is doing; if the rest are still getting interest from investors but OAI is not, then it's just OAI that is in trouble. If the entire class is not getting the money they are asking for, then maybe the peak of the bubble is reached (or the surplus money is all invested).

> No, they sell different products in the same category. You are basically saying Google and Bing as the same product when Bing is superior to Google search in some non-critical metrics.

In this case, it's pretty much the same product.

I mean, if you were to purchase electricity from two different providers (1x Nuclear plant and 1x Coal plant), would you actually care which one is being used to run your dishwasher on any given day?

> From first principles I think youre right, but also Anthropic is making something like 80% margins.

I'm skeptical that they are operating at anything but a loss. 80% margins on a specific product (API) might still not cover the losses on the other products (Free tier, subscriptions) and their expenses (operating costs, training, research, etc).

The counter argument is that a high cost to publish on steam hurts the slop devs who want to throw out 15 games a week, not the indie who works for a year on a single game.

> Every time you rely on the current working directory, that's invisible state then.

And you think adding to it will improve things?

What's the point of basing decisions on outliers?

> Is using these less-intuitive colour encodings made more practical through the use of CSS variables?

I find it more intuitive: when I want to mix colors, or algorithmically choose colors, only oklch works to give decent results.

Maybe you want to severely darken/lighten a color on a page when the user hovers over it - doing it in RGB or HSL results in a color that does not go with the existing colors. Doing it in OKLCH does.

I am willing to believe it happened the same way goblins crept in.

> So maybe this is a bit of good news?

How is it good news?

Consumer searches for $FOO. $FOO does not show up in the search results.

At this point, the search is useless to users.

> As a concrete example: What the queer community wants is do become more accepted as a normal part of societies. Telling them "you're not welcome here, but feel free to promote at pornhub with the other freaks" would be the exact opposite.

That's not a bad example; what would the other "freaks" be in this situation? Transgenders? Furries?

The IRL people I know who are the L, G and B in LGB<insert rest of alphabet here>... are most definitely not on board with being lumped in, as a group, with transgenders. Or furries.