philovivero

[flagged]

SRE.

"You ship it, you take the pager. Once it's stable, then SRE org will take the feature. If it gets unstable again, SRE will hand it back."

If someone vibe codes something, and it works, then no reason not to merge it. So just set it up so if it doesn't work, they're on the line to fix it.

Along with their oh-so-supportive manager.

But also, if you have the clout, doing what you're doing nips the problem in the bud earlier, and so is more efficient. Good that you have the clout.

Weird.

I had LLM (Claude) work with OTF to generate an entire infrastructure HCL (from existing). It built a very nice project that seemed idiomatic from my experience.

Then used it over the course of several hours to refactor it to take variables/inputs for everything, then over a few days got it to a state where it would create entire new environments "equivalent" to the original environment. Days because you know... it's TF in AWS which is slow, so the round-trips were probably 90% of the wall-clock time here.

I'm not a hardcore veteran Infra eng, but I'm decent, and I was able to do way more with LLMs than if I'd had to do it myself.

Yeah. HN is a bubble. Hollywood has an axe to grind, and it's not a good one, but HN ideology is in-line with Hollywood ideology.

I don't know about theatres, but I do know about hotel rooms.

If you lower the price too much, you get a different sort of clientele. The sort of person who wrecks the place and annoys all the other patrons nearby.

Then the cleanup costs a lot. Often more than the amount of revenue collected on the room.

It absolutely makes more sense to keep the hotel room empty than to lower the price to keep it fully occupied.

Who grey-texted this comment? So confused who could disagree with it. Is that the problem, this comment is so obviously true, it's just redundant?

I'm assuming this is a joke of some sort?

But correlation is correlation. At least, for most people's definitions of the word.

Running a model isn't binary, it's per amount of time spent generating tokens.

First, I am also frustrated by companies trying to prevent unauthorised used.

But second, the reasons are:

(1) For AI company, someone publishing: "I asked the model a question about crime, and it talked shit about black people! Look! [damning quote that you can also get model to say/do]." Stability took the "let people do what they will" tack and now Forbes and every other major media mouthpiece slams them at every opportunity about how they are ethically-challenged.

(2) For Replika, someone chatting with their online girlfriend: "I love you more than my wife and children." Then someone hacking Replika exposing these conversations, and now Replika is in hot water because all these divorces. Replace example with 100 other similarly awful situations like talking about mental health problems, crimes, petty squabbles with their coworkers, or political problems.

Start searching SuperHOT and RoPE together. 8k-32k context length on regular old Llama models that were originally intended to only have 2k context lengths.

> While many software problems can cause you to lose money, engineering problems can cause you to lose time.

I'm guessing you were trying to say something else here. I literally cannot think of a single software engineering problem I've ever encountered that didn't cost time. By your definition, then, software engineering is engineering. Your claim and your definitions are at odds with one-another.

Also, you don't directly claim it, but you seem to imply, that software engineering can't have real-world consequences... or something? As another reply points out, sometimes software is in the critical path for things like rockets and airplanes, where mistakes cost lives.

And some people making software for less life-altering systems take their craft just as seriously. Some people think that losing $10M every single second while their software is failing is a big deal.

Are you claiming people who write HFT code, ad arbitrage code, code that powers the front page of Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, and Google are just cowboying it through the day, doing nothing special?

Overall I just find this comment very confused. Maybe you could put some thought into what you're trying to say, and say it better?

> Both of those are systems which had to work right. Large language models are not even close to being safe to use in such applications. Until LLMs report "don't know" instead of hallucinating, they're limited to very low risk applications such as advertising and search.

Are humans limited to low-risk applications like that?

Because humans, even some of the most humble, will still assert things they THINK are true, but are patently untrue, based on misunderstandings, faulty memories, confused reasoning, and a plethora of others.

I can't count the number of times I've had conversations with extremely well-experience, smart techies who just spout off the most ignorant stuff.

And I don't want to count the number of times I've personally done that, but I'm sure it's >0. And I hate to tell you, but I've spent the last 20 years in positions of authority that could have caused massive amounts of damage not only to the companies I've been employed by, but a large cross-section of society as well. And those fools I referenced in the last paragraph? Same.

I think people are too hasty to discount LLMs, or LLM-backed agents, or other LLM-based applications because of their limitations.

(Related: I think people are too hasty to discount the catastrophic potential of self-modifying AGI as well)