This is too much for me. ML playing doom was a thing since before LLMs, decisions tree were always insanely and no one ever used then anyway, i can't see anything new in this yet everyone is treating this as a revolution. This technology was always there and quite easily accessible all along.

What's the difference compared to just taking an embedding and feed forward a simple net trained for the task?

I understand the appeal of saying fuck you to billionaires and pathological liars CEOs and the annoying usages of AI, but i don't understand the wider "fuck you AI".

AI are here, is it going to demolish and (maybe) reconstruct the world as we know it, trying to avoid it it's just silly. There is no sane world where we can "stop AI", even if every single researcher were to do vanish tomorrow and the hardware and schematics magically gone, it would still only be a stopgap.

So...What are you trying to achieve?

I don't like this inevitability framing. It's not true of other actually dangerous things. "There is no sane world where we can stop drugs/nukes/guns/CP, even if every single chemist/physicist/metallurgist/pedo were to vanish tomorrow, it would only be a stopgap [thus we should just let everyone have those things]." Yes, those things will exist in some highly restricted or illegal contexts, but that doesn't mean any of them need to be in the workplace or accessible to every citizen. Usage and access and development could be heavily restricted in just the same way. You don't think AI is dangerous enough for this comparison to be sensible, but I'm not so sure.

Likewise, arguments that other countries will have it therefore we must have it, are specious. Some countries have nukes, we don't let every country have them, we certainly don't let citizens have them; some countries produce CP, we don't let citizens access it; some countries have millions of guns among citizens, we don't let the guns cross the border. All this is to say that it would not be infeasible to broadly ban AI in most contexts. Obviously this won't happen in the current political climate, but it's not a law of the universe that AI pervading daily life is inevitable.

A humanist revolution.

Sure we can't stop the technology, but we _can_ stop the importance and money heaped into it.

Being against technology is anti-human

This is being against interest in a specific technology. For example I could say "I think yo-yos are stupid". But the yo-yo is here to stay! The world must adapt to the yo-yo or be left behind, because we all think that yo-yos are very important and we use them constantly to do everything instead of using our hands! Or we could not be interested in that, because it's stupid.

I didn't say disliking a particular technology is anti-human. I said being against technology is.

True enough, but who was against technology?

This is not being against technology. It's ensuring that technology is used to serve humans, and not the other way around.

https://caiml.org/dighum/dighum-manifesto/

I switched between several local and remote providers and models and over different API (anthropic/openai) and it worked fine, just some minor issues but they were fixed within an hour.

And the system prompt worked great regardless, so i don't think your main point holds, especially as models improves; it isn't throwaway code, but for sure it's evolving constantly, as my own workflow keeps changing.

> My point is, depended on what you're trying to achieve, testing out current-gen harnesses, and nudging your workflows towards them might be better RoI, rather than chasing something that might be throwaway code a quarter later.

Fair point, depends if it's an hobby or you are a developer full time, in the latter case i think it's definitively worth it.

100% every professional developer at some point should build its own harness as daily driver

> > building your own harness is a huge undertaking, a deep rabbit hole. > I eventually gave up on this task.

It's not trivial, but cmon, i did during weekends from my phone and FOR ME it's so much better than the codex or claude, it has every i need and want :D

I'm using my own harness for work and hobby, has github integration, review mode, interactive voice mode, overlayed worktree, browser integration, mcp and much more.

Using claude and codex feels like picking up a club, in-line with the caveman skill...

CoT, was being studied using GPT-2, so...who invented hot water first?

Unless you were paid during those five years

Who's going to pay you to work for five years for a book that has a two-year commercial window, and even for that many people won't buy it until another company that just does printing sells it for half price two years from the first published date?

Well, if you could somehow guarantee that your book would sell enough copies in that two-year window to make a million dollars profit, it would make sense to pay you a reasonable salary for the five years it takes you to write it. It's not completely implausible that people would pay for something that could be had for cheaper soon, considering that there are grifters selling "new editions" (with a publication date in the future, to game recency-biased search algorithms) of out-of-copyright works that are available for free elsewhere.

The real problem is that it's hard to predict the commercial success of a creative work, especially when it doesn't exist yet. Publishing is a hit-based where most books barely sell, but then a few make more than enough to cover the losses incurred by giving long-shot authors a chance.

With much shorter copyright terms, I guess only sequels of already-popular works would get significant funding.

> if you could somehow guarantee that your book would sell enough copies in that two-year window to make a million dollars profit

This is madness.

> With much shorter copyright terms, I guess only sequels of already-popular works would get significant funding.

Even then - who would buy it if they could just wait two years and read it for much less?

You are thinking in reverse, think it more like a kickstarter, you sponsor the author, at that point the author would probably just release as public domain and you could buy a physical "official" copy on kindle or whatever, but you think it as just a tip/convenience or a merchandise, not the product.

I agree, copyright is a just yet another monopolistic tool and it isn't making the market any favor. Copyright could be gradually be reduced to a few years, the market will adapt, for example collecting money before producing the content (like a movie or an album), collecting more money from concert rather than music directly (which is going to happen anyway since it's competing against generated content), etc... Having a weak copyright or having it replaced with a far lighter framework is not science fiction and i honestly believe it would improve the quality of life for the vast majority.

> Don't fall for this. This is big tech propaganda,

If LLM overlords were to stomp on copyright just to train their model, i would be happy, even if it's their doing.