Explaining what a heuristic is does not address why one should be used in this case.
Why would the identity of the author relate in any way to the correctness of their claims? The claims: * The existing exploits don't work. * Reasoning chains producing an exploit have cheated the test. If the claims are…
Given the usefulness of this to anybody who knew about it between the ceremony and now - assume malice.
You have almost understood the joke.
You seem to be confusing your quantifiers a little. (Not all SWEs must understand all CS) does not imply (there can exist parts of CS that no SWE understands).
> I think the next step is to demand that proofs either be human-scale or they prove that a human-scale proof is impossible and the machine proof is as good as it gets. > I suspect that's possible without tripping over…
oh no that sounds really "fake". nasty word. we are calling it "super intelligence" now. much better.
Keeping the tech proprietary so that it can only be used on these problems by internal teams is the very definition of gatekeeping.
If we want to call it what it is: Copyright Laundering. Layering and placement of copyrighted materials to evade copyright.
No it does not, but it does imply that if they broken system was willing to pursue one person to his death then it should fairly uphold the same standard for executives who are doing the same thing.
In many codebases when you see this happening it is because someone reported a bug and the dev fixed the narrowest instance they could. Typically if(some specific case) do_fix() else do_normal(). Over time this…
You should let them eat cake.
Cloud services expose their UI/UX through a web-browser will all of the pain points of running a stateful blob of javascript on the client, talking through a mostly stateless protocol to a "mess of stuff" that aims for…
Good to see that people still have this spirit of rolling their sleeves up and doing something like this for fun. Underneath it there is a very real point about mono-cultures and the increased magnitude of the impact of…
Some of it is well sourced but the remainder is well sauced.
Amazingly enough we have different words to mean different things. What is going to really blow your mind is that the word for the part often differs to the word for the whole.
No, it is the application of learning and that is why learning is central to the definition tgat you pointed at.
If you place an LLM into a harness, alongside evaluation, feedback and problem decomposition / solution integration - it is still an LLM? There is an LLM acting as a component in a larger system. But that larger system…
> Modern models, when properly managed with a human in the loop, write higher-quality code than humans and introduce significantly fewer bugs. I don't think anybody believes this, and interjecting it into every thread…
Tried it after seeing the comment about it yesterday and loving it so far. Very clean, easy and fast to build. Performance is great, and the minimal UI is a breath of fresh air.
I'm on the Swedish list and I get exactly zero spam calls. As the parent post pointed out it is country specific.
I think it is uncontentious that we are not designed at all. But to address the intended spirit of the question: are we restricted to output that is a close fit for our training set? I would argue that we are not -…
The tu quoque argument doesn't really work here. LLMs are specifically designed to output either material from their training set or instances that look statistically like it. Humans are not.
If you are relying on live updates to change state in a dynamic language then you are not doing it "surgically", unless there is some other definition that means hitting it softly with a large rock.
Kind of weird how LoC has become a metric for people to chase again.
Explaining what a heuristic is does not address why one should be used in this case.
Why would the identity of the author relate in any way to the correctness of their claims? The claims: * The existing exploits don't work. * Reasoning chains producing an exploit have cheated the test. If the claims are…
Given the usefulness of this to anybody who knew about it between the ceremony and now - assume malice.
You have almost understood the joke.
You seem to be confusing your quantifiers a little. (Not all SWEs must understand all CS) does not imply (there can exist parts of CS that no SWE understands).
> I think the next step is to demand that proofs either be human-scale or they prove that a human-scale proof is impossible and the machine proof is as good as it gets. > I suspect that's possible without tripping over…
oh no that sounds really "fake". nasty word. we are calling it "super intelligence" now. much better.
Keeping the tech proprietary so that it can only be used on these problems by internal teams is the very definition of gatekeeping.
If we want to call it what it is: Copyright Laundering. Layering and placement of copyrighted materials to evade copyright.
No it does not, but it does imply that if they broken system was willing to pursue one person to his death then it should fairly uphold the same standard for executives who are doing the same thing.
In many codebases when you see this happening it is because someone reported a bug and the dev fixed the narrowest instance they could. Typically if(some specific case) do_fix() else do_normal(). Over time this…
You should let them eat cake.
Cloud services expose their UI/UX through a web-browser will all of the pain points of running a stateful blob of javascript on the client, talking through a mostly stateless protocol to a "mess of stuff" that aims for…
Good to see that people still have this spirit of rolling their sleeves up and doing something like this for fun. Underneath it there is a very real point about mono-cultures and the increased magnitude of the impact of…
Some of it is well sourced but the remainder is well sauced.
Amazingly enough we have different words to mean different things. What is going to really blow your mind is that the word for the part often differs to the word for the whole.
No, it is the application of learning and that is why learning is central to the definition tgat you pointed at.
If you place an LLM into a harness, alongside evaluation, feedback and problem decomposition / solution integration - it is still an LLM? There is an LLM acting as a component in a larger system. But that larger system…
> Modern models, when properly managed with a human in the loop, write higher-quality code than humans and introduce significantly fewer bugs. I don't think anybody believes this, and interjecting it into every thread…
Tried it after seeing the comment about it yesterday and loving it so far. Very clean, easy and fast to build. Performance is great, and the minimal UI is a breath of fresh air.
I'm on the Swedish list and I get exactly zero spam calls. As the parent post pointed out it is country specific.
I think it is uncontentious that we are not designed at all. But to address the intended spirit of the question: are we restricted to output that is a close fit for our training set? I would argue that we are not -…
The tu quoque argument doesn't really work here. LLMs are specifically designed to output either material from their training set or instances that look statistically like it. Humans are not.
If you are relying on live updates to change state in a dynamic language then you are not doing it "surgically", unless there is some other definition that means hitting it softly with a large rock.
Kind of weird how LoC has become a metric for people to chase again.