threethirtytwo

The problem is a bit different. The world is not at war yet we spend billions on weapons. It's more to show off. It's gaming the system.

Why just SRE's it's deskilling everyone in this industry.

This is a drop in the bucket. Not worth complaining about. Look at Anduril. That company is using AI to make weapons to “slaughter” people.

Quotes around slaughter because their weapons are so useless no one is using them. So they’re using ai to make machines that don’t work.

The consequences can be made equivalent. Reinforcement training.

I think there’s a chance for anti ai terrorism along with Amish style anti ai behavior.

Ai is stripping people away from their identity. There’s tons and tons of hatred for it… even here on HN.

Exactly. The LLM is correct. But no one has the balls nor are they unbiased enough to agree.

Sure you can do that. But what’s the practical point if only your agent is reading it? Your agent doesn’t care about linting.

Not useful at all. It uses up context. You need all the context you can get for the LLM read the code later for you later.

This is cool. But of course we have to think of the other use case: "Hack the planet."

Teach him how to use ai.

Nobody is talking about how far we'll go or what the end game will be. That is NOT the topic of the conversation!

I'm saying right now in your personal workflow you are giving up many useful features of AI when you only allow it to implement your design as opposed to letting it design for you.

> I take this as a stronger signal that too many people with shitty opinions have a microphone these days

Look in the mirror.

> Until it doesn’t, and then you’re too stupid to understand why not. Was it that your prompt wasn’t good enough? Does the model not have enough context? Is it even possible for your request to be satisfied?

You’re unable to comprehend the topic of the conversation.

We’re talking about querying the model with prompts and asking for solutions beyond your intelligence. You’re talking about flawed prompts.

> You answered this yourself

You’re rude af. Not understanding something is not intrinsically bad.

In fact you use things you don’t understand on a daily fucking basis. Your iPhone, your car, your computer. All of these things have aspects of it beyond your intellectual capability to fully grasp or comprehend and yet you use it. Sometimes these people who make these things produce faulty products and you ask for a refund and are more careful in the future about what you trust, sometimes the product is exemplary.

Relying on an LLM to do something for you is much of the same.

Get it? Probably not. What are you going to do? Call me stupid again because you have nothing substantial to say? lol.

Edit: you edited your response which is uncharitable. But whatever I’ll respond to your new statements below.

> What’s the limit to this? “Claude build me a nuclear fusion reactor.” Surely we can agree that there’s a limit or we’d already be living in some post-scarcity utopia. So what’s the limit?

I agree. But this is not the topic of conversation. I’m talking about querying LLM to do something beyond your ability. This is something you can do and also stay well within the obvious limit you’re implying here.

> I’m suggesting a limit: human stupidity is limitless while compute is finite. We can use the word “ignorance” if the word “stupid” is too inflammatory.

You don’t need to suggest a limit. It’s obvious ai can’t build a nuclear reactor. Nobody needs to be told this.

A clever quote doesn’t prove shit. Ok so human stupidity is limitless. Computer is also finite. I agree.

How the fuck does the above two facts which I agree with have anything to do with me asking the LLM to make something I have no knowledge about? “Hey LLM write an emulator for this Zelda n64 game.”

The prompt is well within the “limit” of what an LLM can do. Compute is still limited. And human stupidity is still boundless. Nothing has changed. Why? Because someone is ignorant and unaware they are prancing off topic onto orthogonal concepts.