That’s on me, I meant the equivalent of a “trust me bro” , in this case an anecdotal “me and the people I know all say…”

showing Claude submissions is sufficient for analyzing code in the context I believe it is good

Yes, in the context you provided it makes sense, as a response to my question which specified examples of larger projects/workflows, it does not.

Im not here to argue either, I asked a specific question and your answer didn’t really address any of it, i was just pointing that out.

I too find it frustrating but it seems for different reasons.

I really really dislike the way it’s being sold as a solution for things it’s in no way a solution for.

They do certain things fine, good even, but blanket statements like “their code is great” without appropriate qualifiers is contributing to the validation of these bullshit sales-oriented claims of task competency.

1: agreed

2: then I think you are missing the fundamental limitations of the current approaches, but we can agree to disagree on this.

3: see 2

I agree with jobs on the chopping block, though i think that’s in large part due to poor due diligence and planing by management, but that’s nothing new, the same thing has and is still happening with offshoring (throwing more people at a problem generally won’t solve design and governance issues).

I also think the current systems aren’t capable of being a viable replacement for anything above junior level stuff, if that ( not that that doesn’t present it’s own problems )

I think the difference in opinion comes from my belief that LLM’s and the current tooling around them aren’t fundamentally capable of replacing existing resources, not that they just don’t have the power yet.

Putting increasing large compute in a calculator won’t magically make it a spreadsheet application.

I appreciate the answer but that’s not at all what i asked.

I have anecdotes and personal experience i could cite but that’s not particularly helpful in a general sense.

Pointing to claude submissions in projects is actively less than helpful in this case because it only proves that single files in isolation look like they are well written, it gives no indication of overall project quality.

People that I know to be good developers have also shared their experiences with it and say yes, it has written good code for them. I’ve personally used ChatGPT to generate very mundane tasks and the code it output was more than adequate.

So in a very limited context the code generated for you personally was acceptable, that’s great, i’ve found much the same, but that’s a far cry from “AI writes great code; I think we just want it to suck.”

It’s somewhat my bad though, when i say “citation” i don’t need a full research paper (though that would be nice) i’d like something a bit more substantial than a “trust me bro”.

It introduces security bugs and subtle bugs at probably the same rate as a human (I have no “citation” there, just what I’ve seen)

That’s a load-bearing probably, my experience has been the polar opposite of that, I’ve been involved in two major AI initiatives and both choked hard on security and domain bugs. That could very well be a project management or company specific issue, hence the search for successful projects to compare.

My quest continues.

It really doesn’t suck at them. AI writes great code; I think we just want it to suck.

Citation? I’m really asking because I’ve yet to hear about anything above a toy project that has had any verifiable success with AI code generation as a major component of their workflow.

As in a like for like improvement in code quality, security, bug occurrences and severity, developer efficiency, all that jazz, not just the standard “we’ve funnelled so much money in to this we are almost fiscally required to claim success”

its not a dig, i really want to see one so i can found out how it was done.

Not who replied to you originally but,

You aren’t wrong (you even stated that more is probably better) , just not necessarily presenting the whole picture.

Ram compression isn’t a benefit only scenario, there is a cost in processing power to make that happen.

So it’s a trade off of memory utilisation vs processing requirements.

Whether or not it’s worth it is down to circumstance, though i agree that generally i think it’s worth the tradeoff.

Unified memory is useful in specific circumstances, most notably LLM/ML scenarios where high vram utilisation is part of the process.

It’s not an apples to apples comparison by any means.

Whoever wrote and approved that headline has no business dealing with words for a living.

Regardless of bias, that’s the linguistic equivalent of

“Parents Tried to Shield Their Children From Food. Instead They Got Malnutrition and Starvation.”

I appreciate it.

Yeah, I’m on the default but i’ll explore the other ones now, see if there is anything i prefer.

You’re making quite a lot of frankly weird assumptions.

I’ve clearly stated what i’m referring to and how i got there, if you think there is an unsupported statement then reference it directly and i will respond.

That being said, fuck, i think i’ve seen two posts next to each other and missed where it changed from them to you.

That’s entirely my bad and i apologise, my response was supposed to be for the other person.

“You can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves in to.”

Though it is occasionally possible to point out how their arguments don’t stand up to scrutiny and get them to engage on it.

Only works with the ones not doing it on purpose, however.

key words there are discourse and discussion.

As is explained in a few responses to your paradox of tolerance reply (that you seem to have conveniently not replied to so far), the kind of discussion or conversation they are referencing requires both parties to be working in good faith.

from your own reference

as long as we can counter them by rational argument

If one party can’t or won’t provide logic or reasoning to their side of an exchange, that’s not a discussion because there is nothing to discuss with someone not willing to engage in good faith.

There are absolutely places that are ideological echo chambers, despite claiming otherwise, but banning someone for the inability (or unwillingness) to engage in good faith isn’t a removal based on ideology it’s a removal based on not adhering to the basic tenets of how discussions are supposed to work.

If it just so happens that most of that kind of banning happens to people with ideologies you subscribe to, perhaps it’s worth considering how you can help these people understand how to have an actual conversation.

That all being said, from what i’ve seen here I’d guess you’re on the purposeful bad faith side of things so I’m not expecting any reasonable consideration, but feel free to surprise me (or block me, i suppose).

The DSM doesn’t include that specific diagnosis any more right, it’s all the ASPD and DPD spectrum now ?

They removed it because of the absolute shitshow that was trying to reliably diagnose psychopathy as it was originally described.(and possibly the negative connotations associated with the word itself)

So now they have a series of metrics to measure things they can somewhat reliably measure over time.

Like how the medical diagnosis of idiot doesn’t exist anymore, but there are more accurate and nuanced terms and diagnosis for intellectual disabilities in various forms.

I could be wrong however, my understanding of this area of research is middling at best.

They even had an ending in the movie that was closer to the original , but they cut it/changed it because it didn’t test well.

I’d guess that was because it was an ending that followed the original storyline and didn’t make sense without the rest of the movie also following the original storyline.

That’s the goal, once you can’t outright afford the hardware what do you think happens?

Subscriptions of course, much like the phone “contracts” of today, now you can rent a PC, or better yet subscribe to a cloud instance of a PC.

You’d still need to subscribe to the LLM of course, but that’d be easier if it was bundled with your cloud computer subscription.

Then comes the software bundles, because they can’t just have you installing whatever you want on their cloud machines, that’s leaving money on the table.

Eventually with the next generation, or the one after that it will become normalised, just another thing you can’t own because fuck you, that’s why.

FML: i scroll down maybe 10 posts and this : https://programming.dev/post/46457240

I’m not sure a strictly maths based ethics is the way to go, that’s where you get into sociopath greater-good style considerations like “If i take out the managing team of <Big Meat Corp> , eventually they’ll recover but i’ll have saved approximately X animals in the meantime”

Don’t get me wrong, i’m not against that kind of thinking, i’m just not sure it’s a viable long-term lifestyle.

In order to produce 1 steak, a cow has to die.

In order to produce n steaks 1 cow has to die.

Arguably it’s probably slightly more than 1, given the morbidity rate of cows before they reach the “food production” stage.

In order to produce 1 phone, many different people have to work to produce it, enslaved or not.

In order to produce n phones a non-zero number of people will (likely) be maimed/outright killed while working under slave labour conditions.

If you include the more realistic cost/benefits i suggested above does that change the calculations involved for you ?

The following is an aside to the main conversation:

It was been pointed out that some electronics are as good as necessities for most people, while i think there’s a subjective aspect to “necessity” I’ll concede some electronics use it’s not the same as meat consumption. Though i would further argue that under today’s food production and distribution systems, meat consumption could be argued to be a necessity in some situations.

But that’s almost certainly an entirely different conversation.

In reference to my other conversation regarding the comparison of products that use electronics vs meat consumption, I would ask if “convenience” was a valid justification.

Given the horrors of the electronics supply chain (slavery, horrific working conditions, cartels etc) im not sure why convenience electronics (phones, laptops, pc’s) use would be OK, but meat consumption would not.

Im not saying the horrors are equivalent and it’s not a dig at you, I’m genuinely trying to figure out why one kind of horror is OK, but another is not and how people make those calls.

Hope this helps <3

It does and your points are valid, but i’ll respond to a couple if you don’t mind.

Honestly, if someone is truly aware of the horrors of the animal agriculture industry and is totally fine with it, I would be very, very surprised.

As would i (outside of the sociopath possibility you also mention) , i was thinking more along the lines of people who fully understand and then accept it as something they can live with.

The comparisons of the meat industry to electronics i mostly agree with, except for this last part, not because it’s incorrect as such, i just didn’t provide enough context.

Melting metal, pouring it into moulds to make circuitry, etc. doesn’t hurt anyone directly, it’s capitalism and the drive for maximal profits which cause issues in electronics. I’m a huge proponent for the abolition of capitalism for this reason too.

I mentioned electronics because it’s easy for people to at least shallowly understand how much they use them, what’s not so obvious is the horrors of how they are produced, in a similar way to how people as a whole don’t really understand how the meat industry is run.

Long before the metal pouring and assembly you have the rare earth elements industry that uses horrific limb-removing slave work camps to extract these minerals. it’s not all of them, but it’s significantly more than zero.

There are also cartel like warlords involved in some of the extraction sites.

Think of it as a similar situation to conflict diamonds, but more entrenched and critical to nation state interests.

I mentioned cobalt because it’s the easiest to find credible documentaries, reports and discussions about, but it’s not just cobalt.

Honestly a lot of the big industries are supported by modern day slavery and inhumane conditions or experimentation, i would also assume that extends to the non-human animals as well but i can’t honestly speak to that.

Textiles (clothes, shoes, trainers), agriculture (avocado’s have cartels because of course they do, coffee), pharmaceuticals, non-meat food (chocolate for example).

I keep coming back to the phrase “There is no ethical consumerism under capitalism” which aligns with your stance on the abolition of capitalism, but i tend to think of it as there is no ethical consumerism in general (at least right now) because i can’t think of a way we could ethically overcome the sheer density of population using the level of logistical technology we have available and that’s not even taking into account the (subjective) apparent nature of how human’s deal with such large populations.

But me not being able to see how we make the jump from now to a post scarcity, fully equitable society is almost certainly just a failure of my imagination.

My main question is how do people seem to be able to decide they can live with limbless kid electronics but slave labour clothes are too far, cartel avocado’s are an unfortunate necessity but meat is monstrous.

I understand that not all of those things are equal and battles need to be picked but it doesn’t seem like the subjective severity is the deciding factor and how are the battles picked.

See my reply here for context on why i asked

and then , once they acknowledge that ?

The reason i ask is that I’ve never heard an opinion from someone with the viewpoint it seems you hold talk about what they’d think in that situation.

and my follow up would be to ask why meat and not electronics (explained below) or textiles or megacorps ?

In general i struggle with why people place these ethical and moral rubicons in the places they do (i do mostly understand why the lines exist)

I mentioned in another comment about the horrific shit that goes in to basically all electronics (there are numerous documentaries and articles on the horrors of cobalt mining for instance) and it seems odd that people are ok with that but not the meat industry, or perhaps fine with both of those but draw the line at baby animals.

Again, i understand why the lines exist, it’s the seemingly arbitrary nature of where they are placed for different circumstances that eludes me.

I’m asking so i can gather opinions enough that hopefully i can understand, eventually

OK, so if negative fucks were a thing, that would be how may fucks in general i give about the actual argument you are having.

That being said, to me it seems hypocritical to be throwing shade about intentional animal cruelty unless you are somehow posting these replies without using any electronics whatsoever.

Almost all electronics require materials sourced or processed off the back of rare earth minerals not even mentioning the supply chain and assembly.

As you said, people are animals too, slavery and workplace mutilation are animal abuse.

I’m not whattabouting your argument, both things are fucked up and one doesn’t cancel out the other and as i said, i’m not supporting either side.

but the stunning lack of awareness (or acknowledgement) of the hypocrisy of your argument is offensive.

Real question, what if there is no cognitive dissonance.

Like someone who knows exactly what’s going on and says “fuck it, it’s delicious” ?

Ah the tried and tested “it’s ok if it’s my property” which historically(and currently) is a universal guideline for what is and isn’t ok.