Sometimes I think about that. In the LLM era, what is the meaning of my existence? Compared to the past, I’ve become able to do so many things, but there isn’t really anything I want to make. I don’t know where to place my identity.
If you’re spiritual, AI doesn’t change the meaning of your existence. And if you’re not spiritual, didn’t you always accept that you are a transient region of low entropy? You’re a carbon-based computer turning food into bits and now silicon-based computers can turn electricity into bits faster.
I’m not trying to be snarky. I spent most of my life as an atheist and it never occurred to me to think about the meaning of my existence. It was obvious that I’m just a wet bag of carbon. What else could I be?
This is a guess (correct me if I'm wrong) but probably you valued the mastery of a skill to create, and now the mastery is worthless as anyone can create anything, be it music, art or software if they just have access to latest AI?
And what’s wrong with that? Spending years to understand the intricacies of technology or to master a science or an art field, and as a result, among other things, gaining a competitive advantage in life over those who haven’t done that - is that a bad thing?
This is the exact issue I've been having though. I feel like I'm unable to benefit society now. My whole life I've spent learning math and computer science so that I could help other people do things. Now they don't need me, and I feel lost.
I think everyone enjoys that kind of feeling of intellectual superiority to some degree. But doesn’t using an LLM make it easier to feel that way even more? As you know, current LLMs produce different answer quality depending on the input, so using an LLM actually makes it easier to feel a sense of omnipotence. Papers that would normally be hard for me to understand—if I just put them into an LLM, it explains them clearly enough that I can understand them. I can’t say that the feeling you’re talking about doesn’t exist… but, well, I’m not sure.
Rather, I tend to feel that sensation even more now, while LLMs are still in their early stages.
It could be that, or it could not be—but rather than that, maybe it’s because work has decreased. Normally around this time of year is a season when freelancers have a lot of work, but there isn’t any, so maybe that’s why. People say I should just do creative work for myself, but maybe I’m feeling rushed because I don’t have any ideas.
Sometimes when I go in to get advice, I always realize that my situation is different from everyone else’s. It’s a good piece of writing, but it doesn’t fit me—though I don’t know how it is for other people.
Ridiculous argument. Reviewers' task is to evaluate new products to provide information to consumers in a timely fashion. There's a niche for 'long term reviews' but it's tiny by comparison, and mainly sought out by nerds who are unusually interested in that product category.
Most reviewers simply can't evaluate products over a sufficiently long term to make convincing judgements about reliability. Where the latter is important, it's better to consult a source like consumer Reports that specializes in that sort of longitudinal assessment at the price of narrow product focus and shallower review detail.
Rather than taking incompetence for granted, it’s because—as the article also says—motivations differ, and it’s difficult to judge factors like warranty handling or updates. And fundamentally, “reliability” is broad. That’s even more the case for combined hardware-software products. Ultimately, Reddit is basically where people with complaints go, and reviewers themselves have bias too, but consumer complaints also largely come from people whose products broke, so it’s difficult to judge.
But ultimately, for reviewers, what matters is that they “make a living through reviews,” so they have to say things that fit the fanboy tier they’re targeting.
The problem is that fanboys are generally people who buy more devices to begin with, so they also judge reliability based on the existing product lineup, and reviewers are largely the same. As a result, they can’t help but judge mainly by new features.
To be precise, “reliability” requires predicting the future, and that’s not easy. How would you know if your computer might break tomorrow? There are serious hinge issues with the iPhone Duo right now—how would people buying it have predicted that?
Prediction is basically break-even even when you’re right, and easy to criticize when you’re wrong, so it’s a hard attribute for reviewers to review.
I don't agree, because I just like websites that are full of moving animations... For websites that provide information, I agree, but honestly I think you have to give what matches the target audience of the website. I've always wanted to have a moving book like the magic books in Harry Potter. So I prefer homepages with as much motion as possible.
Some people see a website as a medium for reading, like this person does, but to me a website is a medium for experiencing. I find websites where the elements interact with each other fun. I like fun websites. Of course, you could strip out the animations and just show a print-style document instead, but in the end, having a particular philosophy comes from freedom. A website doesn't have to be quiet and efficient. I'd actually rather websites be fun. There are plenty of media for reading—PDFs, for one.
Going from C++11 to 14 and so on... it’s hard to keep up with those changes. And I’m reluctant to use C++—not because C++ is a bad language, but basically because it’s been used so widely, the places I work have a lot of legacy C++ code, and since each version is different, it’s hard to adapt. I know it’s not a feature everyone uses, and I know you have to define your domain according to your work and limit yourself to a subset, but C++ can do too many things, and even within that there are many overlapping ways, so it’s more confusing. When features are added, you do feel pressure to know them, right? In my head I know “C++ should be limited depending on the domain!” but the problem is that using this language means you have to know it—and even in the same domain, C++ has many different ways of doing the same thing, so it’s freeing but painful for maintenance, I think.
This may not invalidate your point, but C++11 was a major step forward that, for me, made C++ feel much more convenient and modern than before. And C++14 is basically just adding/fixing stuff that should have been in C++11 in the first place.
I like C++11 too. (My introductory book was on C++11 as well—yes, it’s that book about modern C++11.) But some projects require C++14, and other times I have to use C++98.
I’m a “traveling programmer” in Korea. But when I go out to a work site because they say I have to work on C++, as you know, there are so many versions that it’s painful.
To be honest, people overvalue human writing too much. Even in academic research, there were quite a lot of cases where the writing was strange. I actually think AI writing is more readable, to that extent. People sometimes compare AI writing with the very best of human writing, but considering that AI writing is above average, I think it’s readable enough.
>This is the advice I keep giving now. Someone says, “My coding agent’s doing something weird. Claude’s been nerfed.” And I ask, “How big is your context?”
That’s really true, but on the other hand, if there’s too little information, it also ends up working in strange ways. Most AGENT code anti-patterns work well at a medium amount of context, but when there’s too much or too little information, they don’t behave properly.
reply