The title text on that one is gold.

You should let them eat cake.

Cloud services expose their UI/UX through a web-browser will all of the pain points of running a stateful blob of javascript on the client, talking through a mostly stateless protocol to a "mess of stuff" that aims for eventual consistency in the backend.

The old folks, who are retired and dying according to this thread, mostly grew up using local applications with direct control between UI/UX and action.

Ummm... GenZ have mostly grown with mobile apps, which are generally not JS.

Good to see that people still have this spirit of rolling their sleeves up and doing something like this for fun. Underneath it there is a very real point about mono-cultures and the increased magnitude of the impact of a risk, although more eyes checking one implementation should reduce the probability.

huge if true.

meanwhile this bill gates will be remembered for asking his friend epstein how to secretly treat his wife for the std that he gave her.

But the reason why it remains load bearing is key.

You've made a really sharp observation, and the reason it lands is worth naming:

"... worth naming: ..."

  ⎿  You've hit your session limit · resets 2:50am (123°24′W Etc/GMT+8)
  /upgrade to increase your usage limit.

Some of it is well sourced but the remainder is well sauced.

If you place an LLM into a harness, alongside evaluation, feedback and problem decomposition / solution integration - it is still an LLM?

There is an LLM acting as a component in a larger system. But that larger system is not an LLM. Calling it an "AI" is indeed an act of marketing as there is no learning / adjustment as we would expect from an intelligence, but calling it an LLM seems to be inaccurate. So what is it?

>Calling it an "AI" is indeed an act of marketing

Again, this is literally the name of the field (and the tech). It's been around longer than you and probably your parents.

Dartmouth workshop (1956):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dartmouth_workshop

Random dusty undergrad textbook from the early 70s:

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/816fxHVJkHL._SL1500_.jpg

>there is no learning...

If human-like continual learning is suddenly the standard, you can just as easily say that terms like machine learning and deep learning are an "act of marketing".

Quoting directly from the dartmouth conference:

"every aspect of learning or any other feature of intelligence can in principle be so precisely described that a machine can be made to simulate it."

Yes, that's correct. Intelligence is not magic.

No, it is the application of learning and that is why learning is central to the definition tgat you pointed at.

> If you place an LLM into a harness, alongside evaluation, feedback and problem decomposition / solution integration - it is still an LLM?

Clue: If you put a pig in a poke, is it still a pig?

Amazingly enough we have different words to mean different things. What is going to really blow your mind is that the word for the part often differs to the word for the whole.

> Modern models, when properly managed with a human in the loop, write higher-quality code than humans and introduce significantly fewer bugs.

I don't think anybody believes this, and interjecting it into every thread is not really convincing anyone.

What you have to remember is that the people who decide who to appoint into these roles are another step removed from the problem domain. They will have no programming experience, or the ability to evaluate programming experience. They will try and rely on metrics or some "data-driven" approach to deciding who to appoint.

What kind of data will they look towards? Here, we have a precedent from frantically points to absolutely everywhere around us. So the people with "engagement" and "reputation", i.e. they gushed on their blog and farmed engagement, will be exactly who gets appointed to make the decisions.