ryaniscool

AI is here and things don't seem like they are getting any better any faster than they were before. Some people get it wrong and some people get it right...just like before.

Also, you're completely missing my point. The author is talking about his company inadvertantly offloading decision-making to AI. The comment I was responding to was like "Well, it won't do that much worse than people". That type of thinking is a little dangerous to the future of our species.

I can't argue that people don't always consider every possible angle and nth-order consequence to a decision before making it. AI doesn't do this either. Also, this seems different than your original position.

It still sounds like what you're saying is people are bad at decision making so AI isn't doing that much worse than people. That's very bizarre thinking because it opens the door to AI making decisions for us.

Yes, people can be bad at their jobs. Yes, they can work in an industry and not know anything about the market but I refuse to believe that most people in most companies are just stumbling around faking it. I've never worked in a place like that. People like this exist but there are only a handful of people like this at every job.

The hyperbole feels like it's been contrived to fit into the classic AI counterpoint: But humans do this too!

There needs to be a word for this type of interaction because it’s so common in software engineering:

Q: I need help doing X

A: if you’re doing X, you’re doing it wrong.

I propose the word shamesplaining. What do you think?

Not saying your opinion isn’t valid. It just doesn’t answer the question and it’s disturbing that this is the top voted answer. It sounds more like a criticism than an answer.

For 1, effectiveness still depends on the size and complexity of the codebase.

From my experience, as complexity and size grow, each prompt takes longer, does less, and is prone to more mistakes and disruptions to other parts of the codebase.

There are no "overall" outcomes listed in CONCORD-3 or any other paper. Everything is measured by cancer type.

You're argument that uninsured are included is just as axiomatic. Zero evidence or sources. I guess we'll agree to disagree.

I literally posted a link to the CONCORD-3 paper and made arguments using it and you rebutted it with "start with CONCORD-3".

I'll restate my argument so it's clear: CONCORD-3 does not mention insurance status anywhere in the paper. It does state that the statistics require diagnosis. It's reasonable to assume that if you can't afford healthcare, you're less likely to seek treatment or diagnosis.

You understand that CONCORD-3 is about tracking people who enter the healthcare system. Isn't it reasonable to assume that if healthcare is free or very affordable, there would be higher participation? And on the flipside, if it's outrageously expensive, there would be lower participation?

I'm sure there are qualifiers and rationalizations when comparing cancer survival statistics as well. As someone already pointed out, uninsured Americans aren't necessarily included. They cited sources, you rebutted without sources.

I believe a single payer system is a matter of when not if. It works just fine in other countries. In our country, the healthcare industry has evolved into extracting as many dollars as it can from the economy. This is because when someone is sick and needs treatment, healthcare providers hold all of the cards.

This is a cherry picked statistic. We still have lower life expectancy, high infant mortality rates, and one of the highest rate of preventable and treatable deaths among developed countries

Looks cool. Price is pretty steep. Lucid chart is like $16/month.

I understand you're trying to draw a parallel (no pun intended) between what you did with Rust and the work the author performs as a professional game developer who optimizes game code for a living (it says this in his bio).

Since, I'm assuming you are not a professional game developer, the parallel is speculative and sort of reaching. Therefore, is it feasible to you the author of the blog knows better than you what tools work for his chosen field and that he came to the conclusions he did in good faith?

LLMs work perfectly fine for me but I’m building web app equivalents of binder keepers, like most people. Essentially store data, display data. The novelty is in what/how we’re displaying. LLMs are owning this market.

Unless you yourself are doing commercial game development, calling the author disingenuous puts your own pro-AI bias on display. It’s based on speculation. I prefer to take his very specific examples and experiments at face value.

His experience is completely plausible. He’s in a niche that requires highly performant code and most complex, highly performant games do nit have source available for models to train on. It’s a very common observation that the farther you stray from mainstream, the less effective the LLM models become.