Meta should be broken up and its leadership barred from working in tech (or politics)

This kind of problem falls under “communicating badly and acting smug when misunderstood”. Use parenthesis and the problem goes away.

https://xkcd.com/169/

Most email is short. I don’t see a need to summarize it. Google is run by idiots and assholes.

Tech companies don’t really give a damn what customers want anymore.

Ed Zitron wrote an article about how leadership is business idiots. They don’t know the products or users but they make decisions and get paid. Long, like everything he writes, but interesting

https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-era-of-the-business-idiot/

Our economy is run by people that don’t participate in it and our tech companies are directed by people that don’t experience the problems they allege to solve for their customers, as the modern executive is no longer a person with demands or responsibilities beyond their allegiance to shareholder value.

Call the function from the if block.

Now your tests can more easily call it.

I think at my last job we did argument parsing in the if block, and passed stuff into the main function.

I had a director of eng once who asked me to mind my language when I said “For fuck’s sake it returns 200 OK even when there’s an error”.

So I started naively replacing “fuck” with “fudge”. “That’s pretty fudged up.” “Well, fudge it, we’ll deal with that next.” “Fudge if I know.”

He didn’t really like it, but he can go fudge himself.

Yeah I was going to say. It’s like that “no take only throw” meme with the dog. Capitalists want us to spend money, but they don’t want to pay us enough money. Just spend what we don’t have.

If I had a nice job I’d be out spending a lot more money. But they want to replace everyone with AI, or off shore, or whatever.

I just tried “Language Drops” and it was… interesting. It didn’t place me at the right level, so I got a very beginner lesson when I’m closer to intermediate (but definitely not fluent). I’m not sure I liked matching the pictures- the picture for “thank you” could mean different things depending on how you interpret the person’s face and body language- and then I hit the end of the free content for the day. It didn’t get to different tenses or even whole sentences- just basic vocabulary and no verbs. Maybe it ramps up quickly?

They will accept any negative sum game, they will ruin their own livelihoods and their own lives, if only it helps sad little kings of sad little hills.

I’m reminded of that book about Authoritarian Personality Types. They did like a model UN / Civilization game kind of thing, where the players represented different countries and could make decisions about policy, war, and so on. There were two groups. Unknown to the players, the people running this experiment put all the people who scored high for authoritarian personality in one group, and everyone else in the other group.

The group with low authoritarian personality scores? Basically everything was fine. They solved the ozone layer crisis. They were solving world hunger. One guy tried to be a dick and the rest of the group brought him in line.

The high authoritarian guys? Nuclear apocalypse. They made them sit in the dark for five minutes to think about what they’d done, and let them have a do-over. They still did a shit job. Petty squabbling. Stealing. Out of control climate crisis.

I don’t think there’s an ethical way to do this in real life, but I do think if you just didn’t allow people with that kind of personality to have any real power, we’d all be much better off.

It’s also possible i mangled the story because I rewrote it here from memory, but I believe it was in this book: https://theauthoritarians.org/

I wonder if it’s exceeded the max length and caused a poorly handled error

Ed Zitron wrote a blog post I’ve been thinking about, where he said that a lot of decisions are made by “business idiots” now. People that don’t really use or understand the product, and don’t really understand the users or their needs. It’s an interesting read, even though the guy is rather verbose: https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-era-of-the-business-idiot/

I see what you did there and I’m not going to fully fall for it.

I guess it’s like the difference between a parasite that doesn’t kill the host, and one that does. The current breed looks like it’s going to kill the host.

I canceled my subscription. In part because fuck using AI to hurt labor, but also unemployment. Capitalists want us to spend spend spend, but they don’t want to give us any money to spend.

This reminds me of the new vector for malware that targets “vibe coders”. LLMs tend to hallucinate libraries that don’t exist. Like, it’ll tell you to add, install, and use jjj_image_proc or whatever. The vibe coder will then get an error like “that library doesn’t exist” and "can’t call jjj_image_proc.process()`.

But you, a malicious user, could go and create a library named jjj_image_proc and give it a function named process. Vibe coders will then pull down and run your arbitrary code, and that’s kind of game over for them.

You’d just need to find some commonly hallucinated library names

Do the needs stay satisfied, or is it going to be like 2 years later we have billionaires and starvation again?

Many people have found that using LLMs for coding is a net negative. You end up with sloppy, vulnerable, code that you don’t understand. I’m not sure if there have been any rigorous studies about it yet, but it seems very plausible. LLMs are prone to hallucinating, so you’re going to get it telling you to import libraries that don’t exist, or use parts of the standard library that don’t exist.

It also opens up a whole new security threat vector of squatting. If LLMs routinely try to install a library from pypi that doesn’t exist, you can create that library and have it do whatever you want. Vibe coders will then run it, and that’s game over for them.

So yeah, you could “rigorously check” it but a. all of us are lazy and aren’t going to do that routinely (like, have you used snapshot tests?), b. it’s going to anchor you around whatever it produced, making it harder to think about other approaches, and c. it’s often slower overall than just doing a good job from the start.

I imagine there are similar problems with analyzing large amounts of text. It doesn’t really understand anything. To verify it’s correct, you would have to read the whole thing yourself anyway.

There are probably specialized use cases that are good- I’m told AI is useful for like protein folding and cancer detection- but that still has experts (I hope) looking at the results.

To your point, I think people are trying to use these LLMs for things with definite answers, too. Like if I go to google and type in “largest state in the US” it uses AI. This is not a good use case.

That’s really not the same thing at all.

For one, no one knows what the weather will be like tomorrow. We have sophisticated models that do their best. We know the capital of New Jersey. We don’t need a guessing machine to tell us that.

You shouldn’t trust anything the LLM tells you though, because it’s a guessing machine. It is not credible. Maybe if you’re just using it for translation into your native language? I’m not sure if it’s good at that.

If you have access to the internet, there are many resources available that are more credible. Many of them free.

You don’t need AI for people to learn. I’m not sure what’s left of your point without that assertion.