Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49736918

Points: 4

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49716800

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

What makes it worse is that you can not simply modify a sync-function to become an async-function, if it has existing callers because those would likely break them.

This affects the whole tree of possible function calls in my program. If at some level I have a sync function but I see it needs to get to some data that only async fuction can provide, I may need to change a whole call-chain of my call-tree, not just modify a single function in that tree.

Then as I develop my program I need to make the decision for every function; should it be sync or async? In many cases it could be either one so which should I choose? Making it async would seem to make it easier to evolve the program later. But then would it make sense to make every function async?

I wonder if it's true that people don't remember. People maybe remember but don't want to talk about it. It is such a cognitive dissonance.

1. Technical cost of updating the mode.

2. Inability to trust every user's "truth".

3. Ability of AGENT-HARNESSES to learn with the help of the human user.

So agents learn, LLM already knows everything it will ever know, and ESPECIALLY it has already learned how to understand human language.

No 3. above means there is no danger of the LLM getting corrupted. But the agents running on user's machine learn on behalf of that user who shares the machine with them.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49501930

Points: 12

# Comments: 5

So its becoming more obvious that AI can actually help big corporations organize their command-structure with the help of AI to produce more profits. The boards should take notice. Does it really help produce more value if most of it goes to the CEO?

It always seemed to require extra effort to "program myself", maybe because it requires questioning whether I'm doing it the right way and what would be some alternative ways of doing it. It's almost like "out-of-box thinking".

Whereas basic coding is often as easy as writing this note here, just write what comes to my mind. Coding tasks are often trivial, but they must be done. But they don't really burden our mind too much, not too often.

But with AI, it's all about "programming the programmer".

And that requires more thinking, asking more questions like is this really what we need to accomplish, or would some alternative way be better? What alternative way?

Asking questions like that was always part of the work but with AI it seems to be the only type of work. And it is more difficult, more exhausting, than basic coding.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49347679

Points: 2

# Comments: 1

For instance, how do you motivate people to work long hours, put in extra effort, feel proud of their work? How would you do that with AI?

Now politicians also know something about their supporters so they will adapt their statements to what they think they can get away with it. But, I wonder if this leads to a two-party-system where one party attracts stupid followers and another attracts the smarter ones?

In terms of AI, we might see LLMs specialized to attract more stupid audience and others meant to attract those who appreciate correctness and facts.

You can not insult it because it does not care, because it does not have "feelings". But you do.

I would imagine that managing a team of AI-agents is totally different from managing a team of people.