Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)V

VoterFrog

@ VoterFrog @lemmy.world

Posts
0
Comments
164
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • How seeing the new color 'olo' opens the realm of vision science

    Jump

  • So olo because it's the middle of color?

  • The Efficiency Paradox: Why Making Software Easier to Write Means We'll Write Exponentially More

    Jump

  • Maybe Fallacy is a better word than Paradox? Take a look at any AI-related thread and it's filled to the brim with people lamenting the coming collapse of software development jobs. You might believe that this is obvious but to many, many people it's anything but.

  • How about the digestive system?

    Jump

  • Depends whether or not you consider the fastening of a surface to itself to be a real change to the topology.

  • How about the digestive system?

    Jump

  • A straw has zero holes. It's just a flat piece of plastic wrapped around and attached to itself. Ain't nobody drilling holes through plastic to make straws.

  • Roadshow

    Jump

  • What the hell is call ID?

    No, really, if you know what call ID is, you're old.

  • "phd-level reasoning"

    Jump

  • There kinda is. It says the goat is about to cross the river and asks what the minimum number of trips are. It's a trick question, correctly identified by Gemini as such, but there is a question. I guess the more human response is "What the fuck are you talking about?" but for an agent required to do its best to answer questions, I don't know how to expect much better.

  • After watching the latest Veritasium video: why is the spin of a proton/electron decided at measurement, why not at creation?

    Jump

  • It sounds like you're asking why local hidden variables can't explain the experimental results? But a huge part of the video is spent explaining this so I'm assuming that isn't what you mean. So I'm not sure what it is exactly that you're asking. Could you elaborate on how what you're suggesting differs from the local hidden variable explanation?

    ETA: I think you are asking about hidden variables but maybe don't realize it because it was brushed over in the video. When she's discussing the possible strategies for how the particles would decide their orientation, she says there are only 2 strategies that work. Your strategy is one that doesn't and here's why I think that is.

    Say your electron is created with 0 degree spin. When deflected with a 0 degree detector, the electron goes up and the positron goes down 100% of the time. Great. But what about the 120 degree detector? Well the electron goes up 3/4 of the time and down 1/4. The positron goes up 1/4 and goes down 3/4. But this can't be. If the electron goes up, the positron must go down. So in order for it to work, they'd need to pick one of the strategies she talks about in the video. They need to agree on how they'd respond to each of the orientations separately, rather than just agree on a spin direction at creation.

  • "phd-level reasoning"

    Jump

  • No confusion from Gemini 3 (Fast) for this one

  • AI’s Unpaid Debt: How LLM Scrapers Destroy the Social Contract of Open Source

    Jump

  • I can read your code, learn from it, and create my own code with the knowledge gained from your code without violating an OSS license. So can an LLM.

    Not even just an OSS license. No license backed by law is any stronger than copyright. And you are allowed to learn from or statistically analyze even fully copyrighted work.

    Copyright is just a lot more permissive than I think many people realize. And there's a lot of good that comes from that. It's enabled things like API emulation and reverse engineering and being able to leave our programming job to go work somewhere else without getting sued.

  • AI-authored code needs more attention, contains worse bugs

    Jump

  • Yeah I don't think we should be pushing to have LLMs generate code unsupervised. It's an unrealistic standard. It's not even a standard most companies would entrust their most capable programmers with. Everything needs to be reviewed.

    But just because it's not working alone doesn't mean it's useless. I wrote like 5 lines of code this week by hand. But I committed thousands of lines. And I reviewed and tweaked and tended to every one of them. That's how it should be.

  • AI-authored code needs more attention, contains worse bugs

    Jump

  • I'm not sure I get your analogy. This is more to me like two people got into a bath and one went "Ooh, that's a bit too warm" while the other screamed "REEEEEEE HOOOOOT”. The degree is the same. The response is not.

  • AI-authored code needs more attention, contains worse bugs

    Jump

  • Kinda funny the juxtaposition between the programmers' reaction to this compared to the "techies" reaction on the crosspost.

    Maybe we're still early yet so I'll write the difference right now for posterity: Programming post is generally critical of the article and has several suggestions on how to improve the quality of agent-assisted code.

    Technology post is pretty much just "REEEEEEEEEEE AI BAD"

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • You're not going to find me advocating for letting the code go into production without review.

    Still, that's a different class of problem than the LLM hallucinating a fake API. That's a largely outdated criticism of the tools we have today.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • I’ve thought about this many times, and I’m just not seeing a path for juniors. Given this new perspective, I’m interested to hear if you can envision something different than I can. I’m honestly looking for alternate views here, I’ve got nothing.

    I think it'll just mean they they start their careers involved in higher level concerns. It's not like this is the first time that's happened. Programming even just prior to the release of LLM agents was completely different from programming 30 years ago. Programmers have been automating junior jobs away for decades and the industry has only grown. Because the fact of the matter is that cheaper software, at least so far, has just created more demand for it. Maybe it'll be saturated one day. But I don't think today's that day.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • Agents now can run compilation and testing on their own so the hallucination problem is largely irrelevant. An LLM that hallucinates an API quickly finds out that it fails to work and is forced to retrieve the real API and fix the errors. So it really doesn't matter anymore. The code you wind up with will ultimately work.

    The only real question you need to answer yourself is whether or not the tests it generates are appropriate. Then maybe spend some time refactoring for clarity and extensibility.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • There are bad coders and then there are bad coders. I was a teaching assistant through grad school and in the industry I've interviewed the gamut of juniors.

    There are tons of new grads who can't code their way out of a paper bag. Then there's a whole spectrum up to and including people who are as good at the mechanics of programming as most seniors.

    The former is absolutely going to have a hard time. But if you're beyond that you should have the skills necessary to critically evaluate an agent's output. And any more time that they get to instead become involved in the higher level discussions going on around them is a win in my book.

  • Look at this. Or don't.

    Jump

  • I don't think it's wrong, just simplified. You don't really have to touch the photon, just affect the wave function, the statistical description of the photon's movement through space and time. Detectors and polarizers, anything that can be used to tell exactly which path the photon took through the slits will do this. Quantum eraser experiments just show that you can "undo the damage" to the wave function, so to speak. You can get the wave function back into an unaltered state but by doing so you lose the which-way information.

  • Has there ever been a viable alternative to the phsycialist model of the universe?

    Jump

  • Yes, but this is assuming an objective, universal frame of reference, and that’s not really a thing.

    Not really. Nothing I said has any dependence on a universal clock.

    It’s true that there could be some alien halfway across the observable universe that could observe the stars that have exited our observable universe. But, we could not observe the alien observing them, because information still can’t travel faster than the speed of light.

    Right and this is my point. Any philosophical theory that has anything to do with the observable universe is inherently self-centered. Not even Earth centered. Not even conscious-being centered. Literally self-centered. The observable universe is subjective. And so that puts it in the class of philosophies that insist that the universe arises from your own consciousness.

    Which is not to invalidate it, but it's not objective, and it has nothing to do with science.

  • Has there ever been a viable alternative to the phsycialist model of the universe?

    Jump

  • To be clear, the observable universe is centered on Earth (technically, on you). For a being that is closer to the object that leaves your observable universe before it leaves theirs. It can still be observed by them. There is no objective point at which something becomes unobservable by the expansion of space.

    Excepting maybe the big rip.