u/awj

I’m just over here begging people to spend like two minutes looking into what the Luddites actually wanted instead of parroting it as a term for “people who irrationally hate technology”.

“Show your work” and it’s an AI summary of a reddit thread. Credulity is off the charts here.

Sounds like someone turned “number of PRs” into a metric, with predictable results.

Frankly, the claude desktop app does not show 30 meaningful PRs per day per dev. Nor does the 14k open issues on claude code in GitHub.

“We don’t need to depend on the big economically infeasible models, we can just use open weight models that are distilled from the big economically infeasible models!”

The “fun” part here is it’s difficult to tell if it updated the db and the log, or didn’t update the db but wrote to the log anyways.

The fact that any of these farcical attempts at restrictions are what we’re doing shows just how far from intelligent these things are.

So he incorrectly extrapolates from one language he doesn’t understand (rust) to another (assembly) and assumes they would work equally well with the right agent.

Adding on to this, assembly is a fantastically bad language for LLMs to write directly. I think a huge part of success for LLMs comes down to two things:

• expressiveness - capturing meaning in fewer tokens, and allowing building blocks that avoid forcing a need for correctness on multiple levels of meaning
• guardrails - providing the LLM with some feedback mechanism that allows it to automatically iterate its way out of incorrect output

Ruby is good for the former, Rust is great for the latter. If you're adding to a well established project, expressiveness becomes important. If you're starting from scratch, "a compiler that will reject problem inputs" is incredibly valuable.

Assembly gives you neither of those. Furthermore "drop down to assembly" is a performance adage that hasn't been the appropriate default answer for decades. It's something people think is the right answer for performance problems because they only witness the edge cases where that is true. Even for video games almost all of their code relies on compilers encoding decades of optimization techniques over hand-rolling assembly.

GCC as it currently exists is a fork (EGCS) that was re-adopted. People started a fork over leadership issues, and the fork became so popular that the original project abandoned their branch and restructured around the fork.

It does happen, but that I’m reaching back almost three decades for an example also backs up your point that it rarely happens.

Oh, how I wish I had DNFed this series. It was only towards the end that it got bad enough to shake me out of dogged completionism.

This is why Linus Torvalds is also leaning heavily into the tool.

Have a source on Linus Torvalds turning to full on vibecoding?

Right? Which part of what he said needed saying? This is almost as insulting as the talk itself was.

This is just what we had before, but with extra steps. Also, expecting that everyone will do this is … wildly naive.

So you can do all that, but you can’t talk to your friends outside of Facebook? Those are some weird priorities.

One of the most challenging parts of DMing is remembering that your players don't know everything you know. One of the more rewarding parts of DMing is having players surprise you with that disconnect and accidentally come up with something better than you had planned.

Under no circumstances should you tell them they just can't do this.

From their perspective, they don't know the main plot. They have a map, which implicitly tells them "here's places you could go", and it sounds like they aren't aware of the fog limiting them? You haven't really given them much to work with yet, and they're working with what they do have, discouraging that will make it feel like they have no agency.

If it were me, I would probably try to rework my introductory plot points to either:

• Be a requirement to be able to travel to where they want to go
• Happen where they want to go after they figure out how to travel there

Temporarily turn the fog into an obstacle instead of a barrier. Maybe have them find an ancient relic capable of repelling the fog, but it's powered by magical energy nobody knows how to create. This sets them up to be able to go where they're trying to go, but also keeps the fog as a long term thing. Maybe the relic happens to run out when they get back to the starting location, or they're just borrowing it from an NPC with the promise to return it.

 Claude Code seems to promote creating tickets of minor value, gold-plating, and repetition.

Once you start trying to do really complicated things, you're back in the world of needing to babysit Claude. But if you've been just skimming code for the last few months a lot of those skills will have atrophied and it will feel even harder to do that.

So instead people retreat to things that Claude can easily do, and we have this weird illusion of productivity without the real tangible outcomes that should measure productivity.

Humans are generally pretty bad about confusing a lack of challenge with efficiency.

Everyone is downvoting you because you’re considering it based on a hypothetical benefit weighed against very real actual problems with the technology.

At what point has “well, maybe they might use this dystopian thing to our benefit” been a thought that proved out?

I don’t want some private company’s weirdos, or whoever their lax security practices grant access to, surveilling kids. This “maybe they could do good with it” crap doesn’t outweigh that.

Note that chess.com cited the number of possible games, then the loser arguing with them well actually-ed with positions.

Dude has awful reading comprehension and somehow thinks he’s a genius.

Not even “thousands of examples”, they reused existing compiler test suites (admittedly, smart choice) and even with that level of direction feedback still couldn’t get it working.

Are the underlying technologies of LLMs inherently unpredictable and functionally impossible to analyze? Yes, absolutely.

They can’t “use deception and subterfuge”. There’s no intent to these things, just “next word prediction” with an enormous number of criteria and a dubiously acquired corpus of most of human knowledge. They can wind up mimicking deception and subterfuge, if that’s the path their “predict the next word” activity heads towards.

Yup, hidden downside is that you’re compelled to a death duel with any other katana wielder you encounter. Dunno why that wasn’t in the book or errata.

Critical vulnerabilities getting lost amidst a sea of lower level bugs is bad.

Maintainers burning out and quitting is bad.

AI producing unwieldy levels of output isn’t the efficiency win so many people seem to think it is. It just moves the bottleneck elsewhere in the system, with added pressure. I’m sure the Linux kernel maintainers are aware of this and thinking about how to make it sustainable, but generating a pile of bug reports too big for anyone to address isn’t exactly great.

This one's easy, no AI.

Since it seems like you’ve already discussed this with him, this needs to be flagged with both your manager and his. Both the general expenditure of time and the lack of reasonable feedback.

Expecting people to use their human time responding to overly aggressive AI slop feedback is a horrible use of resources.

Start collecting off-the-rails reviews and the responses to them. Document what is happening and bring it to the people with authority to make him listen to reason.

Don’t put up with this or it’s just going to become the norm.

By this point in the iPhone’s timeline they were three years into the App Store being a thing and shipping nearly twice as many phone as Blackberry.

Where’s the similar parallels with AI?

That assumes that “child murderer” is the impetus of their hatred and not “woman”.

I’ve seen both, but also a lot of comments that feel like the latter pretending to be the former.