something_else

"fertile" 😬😬😬 As the fertile Gen Z women would say, "cringe"

It makes no sense that this would be good for your body, let alone curing any ailment. Water is required for every basic function in your body, I struggle to see how you would function better without it. It's like saying that your car will function better after you drain all the oil out of it and drive it around for a week.

You're not entirely wrong, but it's flexible enough that you can give it specific design requirements which are unique to you and it'll implement them. You can also give it several other websites as inspiration and it'll create something unique that draws inspiration from all of of them.

Thanks for sharing your experience! I relate a lot to the bullying part. What meds did you try out of curiosity? And re people pleasing, I had people pleasing symptoms when I was a late teen, but I'm a lot better with that now than I used to be. Interestingly I find the meds make me people please less. I realised a lot of my people pleasing was because I found it easy to be a people pleaser as a backup when my brain couldn't focus on or keep track of a conversation well enough to push back on stuff I disagreed with. The thing that really convinced me to go and get an ADHD test though was thinking about how chaotic, disorganised, impulsive and loud I was as a young kid before I even started getting bullied or anything. If anything the bullying is probably what suppressed my external ADHD symptoms because I became very quiet after that, but still extremely disorganised. By disorganised I'm talking like carrying a schoolbag full of everything I needed for the entire year instead of only taking what I need every day, no folders per subject, my school bag was just one big pit of random papers. Forgetting to do homework every week, or leaving it to the last minute. Locking parent's keys inside the house or car. Once I flooded the house because I started running a bath and forgot about it. I would talk about random shit that interested me for hours but couldn't hold a basic conversation. I find it hard to explain that with anything other than executive dysfunction, it can't really be learned behaviour because I was young and both my parents are pretty normal, loving, and not controlling at all. At least in the UK, having symptoms when you are young (between 5 and 10) is almost a requirement for getting diagnosed because they want to ensure it is genetic and not learned.

You can make it do other stuff, but if you give it no design guidance it defaults to this colour scheme

Me: "The outcome is comparable because X and Y" You: "No it isn't" Me: "Why" You: "Because it isn't, just saying it is doesn't mean it is" ===== That you say I am wrong, doesn't mean I am wrong. You need to actually address my argument: X: Billions of years of evolution encodes massive amounts of data into a human brain. This is comparable to LLM training on billions of rows of data. Y: LLMs learn a new programming language through examples, practice and documentation. This is comparable to humans learning a new programming language through examples, practice and documentation. I can think of plenty of ways to poke holes in my own argument here, it has flaws. But it's not worth my time if you're just going to state I'm wrong without engaging with what I'm saying at all.

Why?

A human can't suddenly just program in C++ without somebody teaching them how to do it, or at least having access to documentation. So yes, we need examples too. Billions of rows of training data is to an LLM what billions of years of evolution is to a human brain. The end result is the same, both end up in a state where they are capable of learning a previously unseen programming language from documentation and trial and error.

You've changed the claim. You started with "LLMs cannot code in a language not in its training data", now it's "they cannot code obscure languages with insufficient examples", those are different claims. Of course if the model can't code in a language for which it has no examples of. The same is true of humans, so that point doesn't really do the work you need it to do in an AGI argument. The point is that you can load examples into the model's context and it will use those to write in a language it hasn't seen during training. That's what they did in this paper (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2603.14501) and you can see an excellent summary in the snippet image below. ----- On top of this, 53.8% is the result a 'chatbot' LLM gets. When they gave the task to a coding agent LLM and provided it with documentation it could search as needed (like a human would) it jumped to 77.6% accuracy. The coding agent can also employ trial and error approach where it will compile some code, check the output of the compiler, edit its attempt to fix any error messages, remember it's mistake in context, and then try again, so it will build up an even better picture of how the new language works as it goes.

Ehm, I'd be very surprised if that were literally the case. I suspect it will store the syntax rules in its context and use that to write code.

They literally can. Especially in agentic form. You keep making the same assertions that are just categorically wrong. Taking the big picture view still requires you to have an accurate understanding of the technology

This is just wrong. LLMs capture semantics extremely well or they would not be able to write a coherent sentence

A significant chunk of many white collar jobs can be done within the domain of language + software tool usage, which is what LLM models are good at. Software is where it’s most impressive just now, and also where it’s been applied most readily because tech bros can adapt to this stuff quickly, but it’s certainly far from the only field it’s capable in Up to 150 seats you can get the team plan which is $20/m for standard seats and $110/m for premium seats per dev. Beyond 150 people you need enterprise where it’s metered, but 150 people covers the vast majority of companies. Even when it’s metered, I suspect most devs would rarely go above $500/m in usage tokens, which is more than enough to allow them to be 4-5x as productive. It’s still very worth it for companies

I’m taking Elvanse 50mg right now It’s a very smooth and slow release stimulant which lasts 14hrs Other stimulants like Adderall hit hard and fast for like 4hrs, that’s not available in the UK Ritalin/Methylphenidate is somewhere in between depending on the formulation, usually 8-12 hour release but it tends to be less “smooth” than Elvanse

It's more like "hire 2 senior devs who each have a team of 3 junior/mid-level devs working with them" versus "hire 2 senior devs who each get a 100-200$/m AI subscription that you can set up for them in 15 minutes" Both of these probably have equivalent output just now, but 100-200$/m is much cheaper than 3 junior/mid-level devs. Your final point is somewhat valid, you are kind of held hostage by the AI company. But that happens all of the time in business. Old developers were held hostage by Google or a JetBrains license. It's just a cost the company has to pay for a tool so that you can do your job at a competitive level.