I don’t know about your specific issue, but I have found that it helps quite a bit to often start new conversations. Also, I have a couple of paragraphs explaining the whole idea of my project that I always paste in at the beginning of each conversation. I’ve not been doing anything terribly complicated or cutting-edge, but I haven’t come across anything yet that Sonnet hasn’t been able to figure out, although sometimes it does take me being very clear and wordy about what I’m doing and starting from a fresh slate. I’ve also found it helps a lot if I specifically tell it to debug with lots of logs. Then I just go back and forth, giving it the outputs and changing code for it.

I was mainly doing python with gpt4, but now im working on an android project, so kotlin. Gpt4 wasn’t much use for kotlin, especially for questions involving more than a couple files. Sonnet is crushing it though, even when I give it 2k+ LoC. I’d say I’ve done about 2 months of pre-llm work in the last week, granted I am no professional, just a hobbyist.

For programming it is Sonnet 3.5, there is no remotely close 2nd place that I have tried or heard of, and I am always looking. I personally don’t really have any interest in measuring them in other ways. But for coding, Sonnet 3.5 is in a distant lead. Abacus.ai is a nice way to try various models for cheap. Really, some sort of agent setup like mixture of agents that uses Claude and got and maybe some others may do better than Claude alone. Matthew Berman shows Mixture of Agents with local models beating gpt4o, so doing it with sonnet3.5 and others of the best closed models would probably be pretty great.

Other than having to scroll down an extra 3 centimeters to see your Google results, have you actually been inconvenienced by ai being used somewhere? All this outrageous about terrible ai getting in the way all the time is hilarious because it is absolutely manufactured by people who are obsessed with complaining and then parroted by people incapable of thinking for themselves. Nobody’s actually living worse lives because a few companies are trying out new tech. The fact of the matter is that there are obnoxious karens online, just like in real life.

You seem like someone who is probably self-righteous, obnoxious, and annoying to be around in real life, just like you are online.

Because the headline goes along with all the people that thoughtlessly think ai is pointless, but the blog post itself is an incoherent mess that actually sometimes talks about how ai is useful and rapidly improving. It is a rambling mess. People who read it realise this. People who just read the headline assume it will say what they think. The chances that you made it through that whole thing are slim to none, but sure, maybe you read it, whatever. Congratulations, I’m sure it really improved your understanding.

What a good full set of possibilities since it’s certainly impossible for anyone on the internet to lie. How fun for a blog to contradict its main point.

Yeah, this is exactly what I think it is. I’m a bit concerned about how hard it’s going to hit a large number of people when they realize that they’re echo chamber of “LLMs are garbage and have no benefits” was so completely wrong. I agree that there are scary aspects of all this, but pretending like they don’t exist will just make it harder to deal with. It’s like denying that the smoke alarm is going off until your arm is on fire.

There is literally not a chance that anyone downvoting this actually read it. It’s just a bunch of idiots that read the title, like the idea that llms suck and so they downvoted. This paper is absolute nonsense that doesn’t even attempt to make a point. I seriously think it is ppprly ai generated and just taking the piss out of idiots that love anything they think is anti-ai, whatever that means.

This is that super forward-thinking EU tech protection we are always hearing about that the whole world should be so jealous of.

It blatantly contradicts itself. I would wager good money that you read the headline and didn’t go much further because you assumed it was agreeing with you. Despite the subject matter, this is objectively horribly written. It lacks a cohesive narrative.

Yes, and then you take the time to dig a little deeper and use something agent based like aider or crewai or autogen. It is amazing how many people are stuck in the mindset of “if the simplest tools from over a year aren’t very good, then there’s no way there are any good tools now.”

It’s like seeing the original Planet of the Apes and then arguing against how realistic the Apes are in the new movies without ever seeing them. Sure, you can convince people who really want unrealistic Apes to be the reality, and people who only saw the original, but you’ll do nothing for anyone who actually saw the new movies.

Yeah, this paper is time wasted. It is hilarious that they think that 3 years is a long time as a data scientists and this somehow gives them such wisdom. Then, they can’t even accurately extract the data from the chart that they posted in the article. On top of all this, like you pointed out, they can’t even keep a clear narrative, and they blatantly contradict themself on their main point. They want to pile drive people who come to the same conclusion as themself. What a strange take.

I don’t know how much stock to put in this author. They can’t even read the chart that they shared. They saw that 8% didn’t get use from gen ai and so assumed that 92% did. There are also 7% that haven’t tried using it yet. Ironically, pretty much any LLM with vision would have done a better job of comprehending the chart than this author did.

You complained about the Facebook engagement algorithm. I said they should be allowed to run the code and people use it if they choose. You disagreed.

It is a bit weird that you’ve flipped over to my side, and now you want freedom, and you’re trying to put me over on your original side. It’s nice that we both agree now. Nice chatting.

It’s not only advertisers. It is a need for engagement. Facebook makes money if people are engaged, both from advertisement and selling data. People prefer to use platforms that have lots of money to put into the user experince. Maybe this will change as people become more aware, maybe with things like the fediverse.

Oftentimes, things like murder and insider trading are at least attempted to be stopped, I don’t know what your point is there. This was a discussion on whether or not the government should stop Facebook from having code that keeps users engaged. I said it is better if the government doesn’t verify all the code that makes it on the internet. That is what the government does in places like North Korea.

Removed by mod

You’ve completely misunderstood. I specifically said we don’t have a time machine to see how the future plays out. All we can do is make our best guesses based on the past.

You’ve had to throw away basic reasoning tools that have been used for ages in order for your stance to remain “safe.” I understand your fear, but honestly, you are better off embracing and understanding instead of putting your head in the sand and saying that we shouldn’t use the past to make predictions of the future.

Is this something that you think can be proven, or is it just something that we get to know deep down in our souls without any evidence for it?

The past is where we get all of our information from. To pretend like we can’t use the past to predict the future makes us unable to do anything. We don’t have a time machine to go see exactly how the future plays out.

It is more common than you realise for their to be predictable trends in computing. Just go look at Moore’s law and how long it has held up(with just minor adjustments). What would be way more surprising is if we are all of a sudden at a massive turning point where we can no longer anticipate what is next. You don’t have to take my word for this. Find anyone with a background in computing to independently verify it. Even chatgpt could really help you understand this.

The specialized hardware efficiency gain isn’t even a mystery at all. It is simply the consequence of designing hardware that does a specific task very well. It isn’t nearly as much of a guess as you think it is. To help you picture it, imagine a vehicle that works on land, sea, and sky. It is not such a leap to say that a vehicle made to work for just the land would be much more efficient at being on land. This really isn’t anything that anyone in the computing world disagrees with. It is just your outsider point of view that is making it seem like magic to you. Again, don’t take my word. This is comp science 101 stuff that really isn’t disputed.

So far as the thought experiment with replacing neurons. The technology to do so doesn’t need to exist for the point to hold true. That simply isn’t a logical requirement for thought experiments. This has nothing to do with computing or anything. This is just true of logical arguments. In order to make points, we can use thought experiments. This is something that Einstein was famous for, and not many people question his ability to form solid arguments.

I understand that you feel passionate about this, and you really want this idea that humans are somehow magical and fundamentally different from machines. It really is understandable. I’ve given plenty of solid arguments that you really haven’t responded to at all. It has never been true that people can’t use thought experiments or past trends to help make conclusions about the future. It is very telling that these are things that you feel like you must discard in order to defend your stance. These are both things that have been reliably used for hundreds and even thousands of years.

I would really encourage you to get ahold of some logical reasoning material and try to take a step back to some basics if this is something that you are interested in digging a bit deeper into this. It is almost never the case that initial hunches turn out to be kept after thurough investigation.

I do just want to add that my conclusion is that I, as a human, am not uniquely special for having the ability to have thoughts, ideas, and come up with new things. This point of view is inherently a massive blow to the human ego. It simply doesn’t make any sense to hold such a view if one’s ego is what is controlling the judgment. The same can not be said about the opposite viewpoint.