So, helping for the worse?

How?

Double the emissions and half of the efficiency. Good choice.

Because having a driver license is the same as letting a fascist regime round people up.

Calling Amazon just a “seller” is an understatement. It’s like saying that the Google Play store is just an hosting platform. Amazon provides ad and marketing services, hosting, support, and more importantly, logistics.

Games sold outside of Steam have no access to Steam features, in the same sense that products sold outside of Amazon aren’t promoted and delivered by Amazon.

Again, CV is not new. Computational biological simulation isn’t new either. More computational power and better algorithms have been a source of significant progress in healthcare for many decades now. If we go back twenty years, protein folding simulation was all the rage, but of course most people outside CompSci hadn’t heard of it.

I call the current AI “hype” because all these advancements have been going on for a while, but most people are catching up only now because they got hooked on marketing material they see on the news.

Anyway, I’m going to paste my message here once again.

Funny that you call mine “ideological” though, since you are the one making claims without any substance, e.g. “it’s only going to get better”. How could you even know? Not even researchers at the very edge do. There have been concerns about the future availability and quality of data. Plenty of researchers have come forward pointing that poisoning a LLM is exceedingly easy. Really, how do you know that “it’s going to get better”? Explain that to me. What do you know that everybody else doesn’t?

How do you even know that AI, as we know it, it’s going to be revolutionary in the near future? Most people only know of technology successes because of survivorship bias, but I’ve been through several revolutions that faded out. How is this one different? And why would you think you’re right, when not even expert researchers are sure?

Now, are you an AI researcher? What do you know about any of this, exactly?

You haven’t answered a single one of my questions.

I’m going to assume that you fell for the hype and know nothing of what you’re talking about.

And I suspect your position comes from not doing any due diligence on the matter.

Funny that you call mine “ideological” though, since you are the one making claims without any substance, e.g. “it’s only going to get better”. How could you even know? Not even researchers at the very edge do. There have been concerns about the future availability and quality of data. Plenty of researchers have come forward pointing that poisoning a LLM is exceedingly easy. Really, how do you know that “it’s going to get better”? Explain that to me. What do you know that everybody else doesn’t?

How do you even know that AI, as we know it, it’s going to be revolutionary in the near future? Most people only know of technology successes because of survivorship bias, but I’ve been through several revolutions that faded out. How is this one different? And why would you think you’re right, when not even expert researchers are sure?

You haven’t read it, have you.

The studies we reviewed show that the use of AI has improved the radiologists’ performances, treatment response, diagnostic accuracy, and decision-making in handling complex cases.

Hardly a game changer of the magnitude you think of. Moreover, CV is not generative. Pattern matching on X-rays has been common for a while, and has little to do with the current heavily marketed landscape of LLMs for everything.

So it’s a search tool. Where are all those AI generated cancer treatments, then?

Regardless, it’s a tool that very few can afford at the level it might be genuinely useful for original research.

Printing presses made knowledge more widely available for everyone.

LLMs do the exact opposite.

We aren’t comparing humans to code.

Except for the bit where LLM behaviors aren’t deterministic, but those of most compilers in most situations are.

And before anyone says that LLVM in version X produced wildly different assembly from version Y, it is not remotely comparable to what LLMs do, not even close.

I would need a citation for that “2x-5x faster” with the same quality, because that hasn’t been my experience at all. Most of my colleagues treat LLMs as “better Google”, and agentic coding in production has been downsized, to the point where it may help with the least critical paths only. And we aren’t particularly AI skeptic, at all.

Also, I feel like progress has stalled in the past couple of years, e.g. Opus latest version doesn’t seem to provide me with any noticeable advantages over the previous one. Are they getting better on paper? I suppose they do, but I couldn’t care less about that if they don’t give me better results.

The thing is, writing code was never the issue, engineering it is. If a machine helps me write code 10 times faster, that saves me maybe a couple hours, which isn’t really meaningful. On the other hand, it increases my workload by forcing me to thoroughly check the work of less experienced devs who rely on them, just to make sure that there aren’t errors that could cause serious harm.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that AI is giving inexperienced people confidence they shouldn’t have in the first place, and that’s not a good thing.

What does it mean? Because just yesterday I saw this guy live streaming a vibe coding session, and he sounded exactly like “Bill”.