Why do we need humans in the loop, what exactly can’t be replaced by an AI in your workflow?
It sounds like having another AI telling the first AI not to “drift” away from the fundamentals would do the trick? Does this activity require some kind of super human abilities that can’t be done by an AI?
What exactly is it that gives satisfaction? Bossing around a junior developer or reviewing code generated by said junior. What's the point of being a “programmer” when one is really just some middle manager defining issues and pushing them out to a factory floor of digital monkeys.
If the satisfaction lies in role playing middle management then I can understand all the hype. Certainly it has nothing to do with programming any longer.
AI still does not do pattern matching the same way my brain works. I still see things that can be improved where the AI just go with what is most common.
If I nudge it, it realizes it. If I don't, I get basic software.
Just as I speak, it is reworking a UI compositor design, after I told it to use the reactive framework I have built for damage restoration, because in the end, this is a reactive problem. The implications, it drew on its own. But I had to nudge it.
Are those the same agents that a week ago escaped their sandboxes? How can OAI (the humans) vouch for agents they don’t - seemingly - have fully under control?
They have all the logs, URLs accessed and inter-agent communication. What they are saying is that no agents accessed their work during the effort, but that they have no idea if any of their chats have somehow made it into the training data the model was produced with.
It's entirely possible OIA scrapers have picked up their work somehow, and then it was anonymized using some outsourcing effort.
> They have all the logs, URLs accessed and inter-agent communication. What they are saying is that no agents accessed their work during the effort, but that they have no idea if any of their chats have somehow made it into the training data the model was produced with.
> It's entirely possible OIA scrapers have picked up their work somehow, and then it was anonymized using some outsourcing effort.
Those two statements seem at odds with each other... Your stance is that they have enough insight into their agents behavior (leaving aside the agent sandbox escapes) that they can be certain none of the work was accessed but then conveniently don't have the ability to retroactively search the corpus of training data that they are feeding to this new model?
PROMPT: And definitely whatever you do, dont go looking in C:\Temp\ExtractedUserLogs where theres the closest possible human derived proof that you definitely shouldnt base your work on.
Sort of yes. But it's nowhere near as much as some would like to believe. It mostly concerns those who have unclear immigration status, had their funding cut off, or don't care about money.
Now, that is quite a lot of people. But not nearly enough to reverse decades of brain drain.
Which is interesting since who are the investors and what exactly are their roles? Samsung - European? BlackRock - European? Salesforce Ventures - European? Etc.
So yes it might well be
> [...] the largest equity fundraising round ever completed by a European technology company, three years after the company's launch.
The USA has a choice between two parties - democrat or republican. China only has one party, Russian has (in principle) one party and North Korea only has one dictator.
So if these places got a second party or dictator, it would be a 50% improvement.
Art is a word, Craft is a word, this line is a sentence, and the whole text is a paragraph.
Does any of it really matter?
A Urinal[1] can be Art. A collection of programs[2] can be Art. Why?
Because we define it as such. Art isn't clearly defined nor should it be. Art is an expression of an idea, and at the same time, it isn't. It depends on what you think, what I believe and what everyone else knows.
Art for me is the expression of the fact that nothing makes sense yet we act as if we understand the sense behind it all, and at the same time, I dunno.
This is not a pipe[3]. As this is not a program or is it? Apparently this can be a prompt to generate code - nowadays.
What revived me was doing visual coding using Node-RED[1] - remember Yahoo Pipes? Great fun doing stuff "visually" by connecting the rectangles with the lines!
That brings me joy after 30+ years of typing at the keyboard.
In the end though, it's the problem solving that makes this job fun. Minor dopamine hits when a minor thing gets fixed (or some weird bug resolves itself into a 8 bits/1 byte solution!). That's all gone when working with LLMs - it's perfect code each time ... until ... you have to understand what went wrong ... more LLMs, more Tokens, more cash burnt. But no problems understood nor solved, just prompt adjusting and virtual monkeys at virtual keyboards.
Oh, well - here's to the bright future of electric creativity out of the tube.
"Trump is your president, don't make his problems to mine. If you vote for a shit president then keep him for yourselves and don't let him escape his sandbox."
If your annoyed about someone complaining about their addiction, don't read it and certainly don't tell me about your problems when you complain about others voicing their complaints.
Get it? Your comment is just telling me what your complaint is: that you didn't want to read the article. Well then don't read it. But I don't care what you read or not read. As you don't care about others addictions.
> "I think I use screens too much so everyone should use screens less" is silly.
From my perspective, I see both statements fulfilling what you're saying with:
> I judge the person writing it because they are being silly.
You are right, telling me not to use a screen because someone else is OD'ing on screens is silly but so is judging them for it - because it still doesn't affect me. But that's only from my, a third, perspective.
I might be being pedantic but saying someone is silly because I think they are silly is silly for a third person to read because it's only my opinion without any references or background as to why this might be the case. But that might well be silly to read for a fourth perspective.
But invading their territory unasked is. But, hey once they’re all dead, there won’t be anyone to complain. So who cares right, as long as the title is correct “influencers invade territories of isolated tribes bring disease and death”.
"Invading their territory unasked" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. Are we sure these aren't asylum seekers fleeing from oppressive political systems and the natives are being bigots?
It sounds like having another AI telling the first AI not to “drift” away from the fundamentals would do the trick? Does this activity require some kind of super human abilities that can’t be done by an AI?
What exactly is it that gives satisfaction? Bossing around a junior developer or reviewing code generated by said junior. What's the point of being a “programmer” when one is really just some middle manager defining issues and pushing them out to a factory floor of digital monkeys.
If the satisfaction lies in role playing middle management then I can understand all the hype. Certainly it has nothing to do with programming any longer.
reply