I am really skeptical of arguments based around "I can do things the model can't" because that space of things is not very large and is getting smaller every day.

The opportunity to not merely cling on to what we have another year but to grow is to say "together, the model can manage so much more complexity than before that we can do things that were not previously possible."

We haven't identified too many of those things yet, but I am certain they are coming.

So there's a clear separation, a reply from me which I stand by and then some interesting chatbot stuff if you're into that.

I was never more unpopular at school than the day we had an exam and I was learning RPN on a calculator that beeped every time you hit the wrong key.

If we can get a little stability, people will begin thinking less in terms of "how do we do the same thing cheaper" and more in terms of "how do we do new things."

I don't know if, overall, it's a 10x improvement or 6x or 14x but it's a serious contender. Part of it is the LLMs are very uneven in their performance across domains. If all I build is simple landing pages, it might be a 100x improvement. If I work on more complex, proprietary work where there aren't great examples in the training data then it might be a 10% improvement (it helps me write better comments or something)

It looks very weird and is hard to understand from the outside, and unfortunately all technology vendors are on the outside.

Basically every technology has an impedance mismatch when brought into the university environment. And when you combine them together it keeps getting worse.

That's why you see things in this thread like CS professors who operate their class using pen and paper and maybe a spreadsheet.

But it's become clear that in the absence of governance, standards of behavior, and rules both explicit and implicit, the Internet has grown toward tyranny and automated exploitation rather than freedom.

We need to set some rules and expectations that people can rely on, otherwise rules will continue to be imposed on us.

It knew how much my phone was charged and it made correct inferences about my device. It accurately read my gyroscope, how I interacted with the touch screen, and it demonstrated (not new knowledge to me but probably interesting to the general public) how these things could be used to identify you and also to make inferences about you (if you are sitting, standing, lying down, etc).

It starts slow but it got interesting.

I guess this depends what you mean by issue. One can pay for it but eventually (especially for multiple children) it crowds out other things.

The price forces a consideration of marginal costs and benefits instead of being able to think about it in terms like "my child would be happier here" or "I value education in classics/fine arts/religion/whatever else a private school teaches for non-financial reasons."

So you're arguing back and forth about exactly which fields should be collected where and meanwhile the world is changing around you. The person who insisted on an absolutely minimal signup page has changed jobs, the new hire prioritizes complete data even if it means more signup bounces.

Weeks and months are going by and there's nothing to click on and still nothing to tether the project to reality or limit the scope of debate. High functioning teams can avoid this, but they don't always control who inserts themselves into the conversation.

And of course as soon as coding starts the spec is out of date unless you absolutely nailed it which I've never seen happen in 15 years. Once a user sees the software and gives feedback it probably needs to be rewritten. Maintaining the spec (pre-LLM) was not that much less work than maintaining the software itself. All this time the world around the software is changing and the spec needs to be updated to reflect that.

And while the spec helps in understanding the system, ultimately you still need to understand the code and it.

But now the time between spec and working code is greatly reduced and spec updating can be automated to an extent. The cost is greatly reduced and the benefits have increased, so people like specs now.

When building software, if you can state an unambiguous goal and what rules apply you are more than halfway done. It's not uncommon to work on something for a year and discover you have been building the wrong thing. Navigating that ambiguity is where all the value in software engineering is.

For $27.99 I can usually get MLB tickets people are dumping last minute (face value starts a few dollars higher) and can always get AAA baseball tickets for less than that.

That dynamism to the pricing helps a lot of people get into the door to those events and I'm sure it helps them milk additional profit out of very interesting games.

I know you say it's the studios setting the price. Why do they seem indifferent to the impending bankruptcy of theaters?

I'll bet at some point someone contact this company and said "hey I'm being shown the wrong course" or "I can't access the material I just uploaded."

I've never seen anyone who got the basics right compromised because of some esoteric security issue. I'm sure it happens and probably will happen more now that it can be automated but it's usually a case of a system being left wide open.

Though in the Unix environment, additional user accounts and groups that don't actually correspond to separate humans have a lot of pragmatic uses.

The problem is I drive in a city with really narrow roads and it triggers the collision warning all over the place. I've also had it slam the brakes in a situation where that was not a good idea at all.

The forward attention warning ("you should take a break") is another one I'd love to be able to tune. I have a lot of late nights at work, falling asleep or becoming distracted while driving is a very real hazard that I appreciate, but it's absurdly sensitive.

The only thing I listen to on the radio regularly are baseball games.

No amount of it is pleasant but it still felt, even at the time, like training wheels on a diaper.