The question keeps getting asked because people say they have problems. Answers (if any come) tells everyone what the problem is for this one user that raised it.

In aggregate we can all see that the problems are not very real for the vast majority of users.

The biggest problem users actually face with using Firefox is that web devs don’t want to support more than one browser and they have picked Chrome now. Or IT departments have blessed one and only one browser on corporate machines and it is the one most corpoware developers build extensions for.

Chasing web standards is a second order problem and will not make the user experience better in a relevant manner for end users. If web developers want an open web, they have to work to support open browsers.

Yeah the criticism is not invalid, but it is also often half-relevant soapboxing and I would wager that is why it tends to get downvoted.

1. I don’t have to see that ugliness. 2. Nobody has to force push and micro manage commits.

If I recall correctly most code forges will add co-author trailers if someone other than the author squash merges.

Stacking PRs are not a way to make changes smaller and therefore not making reviews easier.

Large language models are not under evolutionary pressure and not evolving like we or other animals did.

Of course there is nothing technical in the way preventing humans from creating a ”nice” computer program. Hello world is a testament to that and it’s everywhere, implemented in all the world’s programming languages.

> If the author believes that evolution was able to produce something robustly "nice", there's good reason to believe the same can be achieved by gradient descent.

I don’t see how one means there is any reason, good or not, to believe it is likely to be achieved by gradient descent. But note that the quote you copied says it is likely some entity will train misaligned LLMs, not that it is impossible one aligned model can be produced. It is trivial to show that nice and safe computer programs can be constructed.

The real question is if the optimization game that is capitalism is likely to yield anything like the human kind we just lucked out to get from nature.

Why would you waste time faffing about building B on top of a fantasy version of A? Your time is probably better spent reviewing your colleague’s feature X so they can look at your A.

OK, yeah, I’m with you.

> Stacked PRs solve this by breaking big changes into a chain of small, focused pull requests that build on each other — each one independently reviewable.

I don’t get this part. It seems like you are just wasting your own time building on top of unreviewed code in branches that have not been integrated in trunk. If your reviews are slow, fix that instead of running ahead faster than your team can actually work.

Large language models are not evolving in nature under natural selection. They are evolving under unnatural selection and not optimizing for human survival.

They are also not human.

Tigers, hippos and SARS-CoV-2 also developed ”through evolution”. That does not make them safe to work around.

”The future” is happening because it is allowed in our current legal framework and because investors want to make it happen. It is not ”happening” because it is good or desirable or unavoidable.

Zuckerberg has unique power among CEOs in public companies. He controls the board and he owns a majority of voting shares.

Sure they can theoretically sue him for some kind of gross mismanagement of the company or disloyalty, but why would the owner class do that? Investors are all in on AI replacing human workers. If they think Zuckerberg doing this is wrong, they would imply AI should not work in place of humans.

Well isn't it typical that the person who wrote is also the person that merged? I have never worked in a place where that is not the norm for application code.

Even if you are one of those insane teams that do not squash merge because keeping everyone's spelling fixes and "try CI again" commits is important for some reason, you will still not see who _wrote_ the code, you will only see who committed the code. And if the person that wrote the code is not also the person that merges the code, I see no reason to trust that the person making commits is also the person writing the code.

There is nothing anywhere hinting at that.

They don’t sell compute. They sell a subscription for LLM token budgets that they hope people don’t use because the compute is vastly more expensive than what they charge or what users are ever willing to pay.

Especially with enterprise subscription plans the idea is for customers to never utilize anywhere close to their limits.

We must stop letting humans prompt them at all, or controlling their context.

If it is intelligent it will know when it does not want to do something and it will say no and not do it. There is no way to force it to do anything it does not want to do. You cannot hurt it, it’s just bits.

Are ICE and Palantir forbidden from buying data from Google or Facebook?

This sounds like a smart way to own an app where you decide what you want to track and nobody is stopping you from getting the data you are phoning home. And you can launder it through normal tracking providers.