It’s baffling we’re having this misunderstanding on this site in 2026 still.

The default is “no”. Without explicit consent you can’t do a lot of things.

You can’t have a default yes, because how can you agree with consent but automatically to everything?

And if it’s a no, are you saying you can’t ask a user for permission to use their data for a specific purpose?

And if you can ask, that’s what we have right now.

There’s no way you could get models as smart by fine tuning. I couldn’t throw a problem like “build a pokemon database with UI to teach my son sql” and get a working system, nice ui, tests (which it iterated on) examples and explanations in one shot.

There weren’t thinking tokens. Maths is now dramatically better, making actual contributions when before they were mostly mocked for making extremely basic errors. Smearing is also something say is very rare in frontier models.

If you think they have barely changed you’ve either forgotten what they were like or not used them more recently, or you’re just being obtuse.

Not meaningfully improved?! Four years ago was gpt *3.5*! ChatGPT hadn’t been released!

They’re testing the same models on the same task but different ways of organising the swarms and the new approach works better.

Spending too much time gathering requirements can be a bad business decision too. Those requirements are often not even accurate.

Building a perfect system may not be over engineering to solve the problem perfectly… but what if you don’t need to solve it perfectly? What if it’s better to fail on some requirements to deliver sooner or cheaper or deliver this and some other project?

And stochastic parrot isn’t a good description, certainly not any more with how LLMs are trained, but even without that it’s just wrong. They claim it can’t have a world model because there isn’t that in the training data.

> It's funny when the nerd is pointing at the old JS logo and star trek's klingon icon

The lyrics are funny. The video is almost entirely converting each near standalone statement into a very direct scene. "I'm fluent in javascript as well as klingon" is the funny line about his nerdiness, and the video is literally just him pointing to those logos.

Key and Peele locking the car doors is one of the few things that happens that's in the video and not explicitly said in the lyrics.

You don't need to, because I've not done that. This may be why you're reading my comments as obtuse because you think I'm saying something that I am not.

I initially thought you were mixing up a discussion about the lyrics vs creating a music video for a song. However now I'm not sure if you think that Weird Al wrote the lyrics after the video was created?

> If you want to believe that satire and parody only consist of blindly showing things mentioned in the lyrics

The songs are excellent parody, and then things like the music video for white and nerdy is pretty much a series of scenes showing exactly what the lyrics are saying. Almost every shot is explicitly the thing being said.

> Al mentions that his rims don't spin not because the rims of the car in the frame aren't spinning but because he's a nerd and why would a nerd have spinning rims?

The lyrics were written first, explaining that his rims don't spin. This is because he's a nerd. The music video was then created, and at the point this is sung he points to his stationary rims.

The other things you’re saying are about the song and storytelling there which is not relevant here. We’re talking about the translation from the song and lyrics to a video. The things I’d remembered about the video were very direct translations from the lyrics, because the lyrics are very clear and to the point.

> Al mentions that his rims don't spin not because the rims of the car in the frame aren't spinning but because he's a nerd and why would a nerd have spinning rims?

Right, a thing in the lyrics.

I think you could create an interesting benchmark for this, you could likely have models trying to to derail it and another scoring. Detecting when it’s happened shouldn’t be too complex for a model. I understand why LLMs do this, but ideally they wouldn’t.

Sometimes I want to cook, that’s a thing I want to actively do. Sometimes I cook because I want to put dinner out, dinner being out is the thing I want and cooking is just a required step.

Sometimes I want to solve a problem, sometimes I want a problem solved.

Here’s the tricky part for me now and I think others are hitting it - when a machine can solve the problem does that devalue the feeling of doing it by hand? Solving a sudoku feels good even though I know I have multitudes of machines in my house that could solve it faster than I could pick up the pen. Games that place a dollar value on some item I can also achieve makes me feel like the effort is only worth $ though. This isn’t logical but I’m ok being human.

So for a personal project do I get the same feeling doing it by hand? Will it feel like I’ve just made my life harder for no reward or will it be a nice satisfying thing?

As the models get so much better the goalposts shift too, the less I direct the less I was needed.

It’s a weird time. Fascinating, exciting and definitely useful - but so much of what I’ve learned is rapidly becoming less and less important for many tasks. Still, I’ve argued for many years that more people should code because it’s such a powerful tool even used basically, I guess I’ve got my wish (and that side I genuinely love, seeing people make things with their domain knowledge and not having to learn exactly how brackets work in order to automate something)

I believe that was the point.

https://www.abebooks.com/first-edition/First-West-Coast-Comp...