Posts by ArrZarr

Re: Frankly

I would think it trivial for somebody of your claimed intellectual stature to realise that I'm referring to the article that you commented on as the thing even you can't defend - hence why I stated that you were just throwing snide comments around instead of meaningfully engaging with what the article was actually about.

Re: Frankly

I like how even you can't defend this shit, so you just resort to throwing snide comments about the people who were right in the first place.

Re: Operating systems are software too...

I will point out that a lot of the commenters in this forum have been saying that for probably 30 years.

(In other news, put my first computer on Linux yesterday, so let's see how that goes. Only need to install things in four different ways so far.)

At the risk of getting shot down by an apparent expert,

The 18th Century built a lot of the groundwork for the industrial revolution proper. Increasingly widespread canals allowed for bulk transportation in ways that wasn't possible before. Even with the advent of steam locomotives, the canal system was running strong into the early-mid 20thC, where it eventually got rekt by road.

It also had the starting elements of the factory system (pioneered most famously by that most agreeable of men Richard Arkwright).

I wouldn't disagree that the industrial revolution came in waves than a single 150ish year long period of predictable advancement, but it's always felt to me like the 1750s and 1760s were the spark that lit the flame (Sheffield's steel industry kicking off, Wedgewood, Spinning Jenny/Spinning Frame etc).

Anyway, it's going to be a fuzzy period for the start of something like this, and it wouldn't have been possible without the agricultural revolution that preceded it, which wouldn't have been possible without the Han light plough and the Columbian exchange, which wouldn't have been possible without...

There's a difference between the prompt "Write me an essay of about 1200 words about why and how the British defeated the Spanish Armada in 15??" and the prompt "Can you find and summarise some sources for me on the tactics the British used against the Spanish Armada in 15??"

An SD Bod worth their salt will look at the request "Is it possible to do <task>?" and read "I need this done, if it's possible."

You'll get results closer to what you're after if you were to write it:

"Checking if something is possible, we're only exploring options at the moment. Can we do <thing>?"

That directly indicates to the SD bod that this is not a polite wording of "Do <thing>."

They've got their own priorities to work to within team, and reducing a multi-step "Is this possible?" "Yes" "Do it then" "Done" to "Is this possible?" "Yes, and Done" is desirable from their perspective, their manager's perspective and (most) users' perspectives.

Re: Breaking: Intelligence works like Intelligence.

Look me in the eye and tell me that Sentience and Intelligence is the same thing. The term has never been Artificial Sentience, but Artificial Intelligence. The two have been conflated, but my original point stands. Intelligence is Intelligence, and even though current LLMs are not as smart as we are yet, to deny that they show intelligence is to deny reality.

Re: This is what I keep saying

This is the fundamental difference between LLM-usage horror stories and success stories.

A vague, poorly thought out brief with a wide scope is doomed to failure.

A specific, considered request within a narrow scope is pretty much guaranteed to succeed, as long as there are no external factors that make the task impractical/impossible.

As somebody who often has trouble getting thoughts to paper, I've had a lot of success recently chatting through existing processes and turning them into usable docs with the help of ChatGPT. It's made a huge difference to my ability to get my processes written down, compared to sitting there looking at an empty word doc.

Re: This is what I keep saying

For what it's worth, I work in a dev-adjacent role. I have had to dabble in very basic code but while I'm really good at designing systems, I've always been incredibly weak at writing syntax.

What LLMs have allowed me to do is cover that weakness and get some rather cool projects out the door without needing dev interaction.

There are things I refuse to do (and I use LLMs there as well, to help me organise the thoughts in my head and generate a coherent brief).

The single most important thing to understand with using an LLM is your own limitations. You can raise your ceiling in an field, but it's absolutely not the same thing as being an expert in the field yourself.

Re: It's a wise dwarf ...

The singular "They" predates the singular "You".

By something like 300 years.

So what's the issue?

Re: Agreed

I know you're being sarcastic, but weirdly the Williams F1 team has bounced back to the upper midfield in the last couple of years, after being acquired by Dorilton Capital.

Re: Drama's /crime programmed

Turning tracking off wouldn't present a potential alibi. Having an (otherwise accurate) location tracker show you elsewhere at the time of a crime would be more compelling evidence that the suspect didn't do what they're accused of.

Re: Drama's /crime programmed

Of course, an enterprising ne'er-do-well could never give their phone to somebody else while they're out doing the thing they're accused of.

Re: "human moral decision making"

This might be the first time I've heard anybody suggest that the 2004 film that shares a name with I, Robot had any value in the field of robotics/AI.

Re: Nearly there

The fundamental design of the documentation is created from the real life experience. Getting an LLM to write the words to fill in the design applies that real life experience indirectly without needing the LLM to understand the deep context.