ontouchstart

> You find a blog you like, and use that as a thread of knowledge. You join a community and talk with someone and share resources together. Join a small group chat and post with those people. Your knowledge sharing comes from people you share interests with.

It is hard to find communities where people are not evangelical and soon you become an evangelist.

I am using LLMs to build my own graph of thoughts and try my best to follow them with critical eyes. Do not want to be influenced by or influence others.

Analysis and synthesis are two sides of human intelligence. Current form of generative artificial intelligence is very powerful in synthesizing information and producing artifacts, human will lose this battle.

Understanding is about analyzing and we still have some tools to help us, such as type checking, testing, etc. To some extent this can be automated but needs to be maintained automatically to match the flood of synthetic artifacts.

“Synthetic analysis” is an oxymoron and could lead to hallucinations and irrelevance.

Ideas are seeds. Seeds can be cheap or expensive, but perhaps what we want to talk about is not the _cost_ of ideas but the _value_ of ideas.

The correlation between cost and value can be very complicated, especially in the chaotic world (or chaotic situation).

> I dug through the chain-of-thought publication and did actually find (a few of) them. If people working on these LLMs are reading, it's very important to me that these are contained in the actual model output.

This is a very important point, especially when the output is from a non-deterministic random walk with some unknown probability distribution.

This would be a cool template project to learn C++ without the pollution of LLM slop.

Conclusion of the article (Wisdom from 1982):

> There is an old adage (e.g., Zen) to the effect that we become what we perceive. In computer terms, our (human) outputs become identified with our inputs. Computer technology is exceedingly habit forming, and our civilization seems to be becoming more computer-like, in the name of "progress". Many people tend to identify with their computers, while others become more computer-dependent, willingly or unwillingly. In addition, the so-called "factory experience" has an antihuman element to it. Although it could indeed help to reduce repetitiveness, it must also allow a suitable role for creativity. (In the spirit of this paper we note that unbridled attempts at creativity can often be detrimental, resulting in obfuscational terminology that masks an absence of novelty, or the reinvention of suboptimal or intermediate steps that have previously been discarded by others for subtle reasons not perceived by the "reinventor".) Thus, it is incumbent on system designers and system development managers to understand the negative effects of the use of computers, and to attempt to minimize those negative effects. In this way, it should be possible to increase incentives, challenges, and satisfaction, to reduce boredom, burnout, and laziness, and generally to increase the effectiveness of computer developers and users.

By "embracing" I mean embracing the coming storm and survive it, facing the challenge and admit it is not magically going away.

> Although there is an element of apparent sloppiness in many creative people, discipline is also required. (Note that time-sharing has been condemned by some as encouraging sloppiness, as opposed to batch processing [where sloppiness can be exceedingly costly in time and computing resources]. Perhaps time-sharing could actually encourage creativity, although there is the countering argument that computers intrinsically stifle creativity.) Similarly, diversity of experience also appears to be extremely important (e.g., [Sheppard]); the perspective afforded by familiarity with a variety of systems, subsystems, programming languages, and methodologies provides extremely valuable insights, especially where there is wide diversity (e.g., among TOPS-20, Multics, UNIX, and OS/370; SCRIBE, TEX, PUB and ROFF; Pascal-based languages and LISP; a formal methodology/specification language and conventional design).

I will think “Agentic Engineering” is the “time-sharing” of our time. Embrace it.

I couldn’t help but notice the similarities between human aging and “filling up” the context window in Agentic AI: the “chain of thoughts” getting so heavy that nothing new can be created.

On the other hand, there was lot of disruptive work did survive, or we can call them “hallucinations”.

Hindsight is 20/20.