llm_nerd

Paradoxically, gen AI being good at software engineering massively accelerated its impact on many other fields as a second order effect. Once generative AI could build code to analyze data, etc, its reach massively expanded.

> On the other hand nobody is going to try building a building only to check if it's structurally sound because that would be absurd.

Structural engineering isn't some mystical science. It's a set of mathematical truths, calculations, SOPs, and so on. If a human can do it, of course a machine can do it, and I'm obviously not saying "run it through the stochastic parrot and out comes a corporate headquarter building", but it's a part of the process where we're rapidly going to get there. And of course, the disruption in that field is already underway. For instance Stru AI. Yes, an engineer is still involved, but the premise is that your single engineer now replaces 10 engineers, and so on.

Gen AI isn't going to be plunging toilets or changing bedpans...yet...but it disrupts almost every role in the "white collar" world. That doesn't mean it eliminates every job, but it completely upends the norms.

"I find it hard to differentiate between them." ... "The colours make it too difficult for me on a good display"

Either you are in denial about a personal vision deficiency, or you bought your display on Temu. Or you're just trying to show some sort of vision solidarity with the colour blind, which, fair enough. We should all be more thoughtful of accessibility.

We all know that these aren't good colours for the small percentage of people with colour blindness. I literally directly addressed it in my root post, to then get confirmation that the person has colour blindness. Citing a page literally regarding being accessible to the colour blind is not making your case.

They are objectively, blatantly clearly different hues to the vision normal. Which is why I addressed the comment wondering if the person had colour blindness, which they of course do.

I explicitly noted that someone probably has colour blindness if they can't discern the hues. And it turns out that is the situation in this case, it just wasn't stated.

I didn't discount anything, and that's a simply ridiculous slur. My observation was absolutely correct.

Yes, a very small minority of people have trouble with certain hue combinations.

It seems that you're indirectly citing my comment, so I have to reply.

You really have trouble differentiating between 5fd3ff and b58cff? These are dramatically different hues (65 degrees on the colour wheel).

I mean, maybe the site is A:B testing different hue combinations, or there is a technical fault happening for some users, but if you really have trouble differentiating those two hues, one of your two declarations at the beginning of your comment must be false.

> I know I've got deuteranopia. That doesn't help.

Seems like something you should probably declare upfront if you're complaining about the colour choices, right? As is your comment looks weird to the vast majority of people -- and yes, the vast majority of people are not colour blind -- who have no issues with the colours.

Should every colour-based game, chart, display, and so on have colour blind modes or safer colour selections? Sure.

Uh, what? What is the point of your worthless comment?

FWIW, they are pretty distinct hues, and are easily discernible. I only mention this because a lot of people go through life not realizing they suffer some form of colour blindness, so it's worth knowing. Another possibility is that you're looking at it on a very poor display.

EDIT: I've now been "downvoted" multiple times for this harmless observation, and now have a clown declaring me a "bad llm". Is this what HN is reduced to?

An important life lesson: Some people are assholes all of the time; All people are assholes some of the time. Is it really such a big deal?

Maybe someone was having a bad day. Maybe this is an argument they had with a peer and it triggered a peeve. Whatever.

Tangential, but if I had to rank toxicity, someone going overboard at being a pedant in the easily censored comments under a blog post ranks far below overreacting and clutching pearls to try to pillorize and rile a torch mob, hoping to put them on blast and make them pay for their transgression. The latter is significantly more toxic, and it is what absolutely destroys communities.

Canada never agreed to the "associate member" label -- that came from Ursula von der Leyen, and seemed to be ad libbed -- and just as we don't want to be the 51st state, we don't suddenly want to be a part of the EU instead. It was always about a different relationship that doesn't fall under any existing one, associate or not.

And some members of the EU are rightly saying "should we maybe define what this is before we're granting it?", and they're 100% right. If you basically handed over a lot of your sovereignty to a group and suddenly it's willy nilly adding new members in any form, without the consequences or costs, of course that is a problem for some.

I only use Pro for Google as their models were so far behind, but I tried to give Argon a go, and notably it is only available in the chat interface. One brief conversation, with three exchanges, and my quota was exhausted and it restricted me to Flash-lite for the rest of the day. Rather comical stuff.

And it prompts me to upgrade to Ultra for "5x more usage". In contrast I use my Claude Max plan endlessly, on enormous problems, and my 5x max plan sees me almost never hitting double digits on my quota using Opus 5.5. It doesn't compel me to sign up for Google's higher level plans.

I bought an expensive Windows laptop with touch and I go so long without every touching the screen it's always a complete shock when someone touches it -- you know, the screen touchers -- and it registers. And for a brief moment I remember that I bought a touchscreen convertible, and then forget it again.

It's neat I guess, but he finger is a terrible mouse, obstructs the screen, and it's super awkward. It is a spec sheet checkbox like so many things where people do the "But it doesn't have this {must have} so it sucks" bit of nonsense, and Apple fell for it.

This is a bit of a strawman, as almost all AI-related opinion pieces are on here lately.

"The pitch was that AI would give us our time back. Write less boilerplate, delegate the boring parts, go home earlier."

Who pitched this? Where was this argued?

And for what it's worth, our entire industry was pitched as a way for businesses to do more with less. Our raison d'être is that we would automate and enhance parts of business so you no longer need the rooms of analysts, the constant inventory manpower churn, rooms of typists, mailrooms, and on and on and on.

It's a bit rich for us to clutch pearls now. We exist as an industry to put other people out of work, and many of us have made a lot of money doing just that. There is zero surprise that businesses would like to put us out of work if they could.

And even among our industry, many of us spent much of our time trying to reduce the need for other programmers. Doesn't the website builder maker put web developers out of business? Framework vendors are replacing lots of internal code that could keep big teams employed for decades! Microsoft and other big firms are constantly trying to figure out what the many employers of software dev teams are doing...so they can replace them. I mean, we all do that, trying to automate and simplify the need for other teams to exist.

The "pitch" of AI is that it's a new tool that your competitors are going to be using, so you had better get onboard now too, in a classic adapt or die choice. And...this is largely true! You can't argue it away. You can mythologize a never existed history where software used to be perfect in the pre-AI era. You can't moralize about slop or pretend it's all a mirage. It's all just foolish rhetoric that groups all cluck and upvote to make each other feel good, while the rest of the world moves on.