phorkyas82

Every time I forget to append "-ai" or "-ki" to suppress this abomination from appearing, it's a little sting: Oh no! Needless CPU cycle burnt for these haunting loading animations, its symbols and the slop I need to get past really quick, but which again and again plastered into my view.

Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player That struts and frets his hour upon the stage And then is heard no more. It is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury Signifying nothing.

(some drama from good ol' William)

>It's still a ton of effort with dubious payoff.

Isn't that valid for _any_ AI training? Let alone the "frontier stuff".

That'd be so great. No more cursing if I forgot the "-ai" or "-ki" flag in my search and see this odious AI overview processing window rendering slowly and taking up the space where my search results should be.

..just like any other government?

"Just like humans..", was also my first thought.

> frequently escalating to severe misconduct to satisfy KPIs

Bug or feature? - Wouldn't Wallstreet like that?

Don't forget that gcc is in the training set.

That's what always puts me off: when AI replaces artists, SO and FOSS projects, it can only feed into itself and deteriorate..

That's why there is separation of powers or ought to be.

I always had this: "Only dead software needs no maintenance" in the back of my head, and similarly "bug free only means it's not been used and vetted enough"

While probing into this, I think there could be a case where software is mostly done: when it is shipped with the hardware and run in an isolated environment.

The mentioned tools are probably not distributed in binary form for different OS, I assume, otherwise that statement _cannot_ be true.

> failing to to finish software indicates a badly defined scope. In my first job there'd even been a contractual penalty if you are not done in time. And this company produced examples of "finished" software, that controlled warehouse material flow, sometimes running on 20 yrs old MCU. (which of course meant they could not extract money of these customers, because the software ran too good)

Slightly moving into the other direction, after 17 years of science and tech optimism I see myself turning into a Luddite more and more. First observation was that communication and social aspects of software seems crucial for success and proliferation. And next came: that technology seems inept to solve any socio-econimic problems, but rather aggravates them.

Isn't that what no LLM can provide: being free of hallucinations?

Second that. I see that as a failure of society or democracy as a whole - that we are no longer able to have that broad, public conversation and act accordingly. Why should every "innovation" be shoved down our throats, if we don't want to?

Some human attempts: "Why did the sun climb a tree?" "Because it was chased by the Great Bear."

"Why did The Sun climb a tree?" "To spy on The Royal Family having picnic."