Another angry all-caps rant in an agents file (cf. "NEVER FUCKING GUESS"). As the operator of this tool which you used to delete your production database, you should at least know that angry all-caps ranting pushes the big textual probability engine into the space of things associated with abusive ranting.

I wouldn't do it this exact way either but the benefit is "having any local throwaway integration branch" vs. having none at all. You don't need to do it this exact way to have one.

The "A" in "AGI" doesn't stand for "Apocalypse", you know.

It made some sense as a goalpost when the frontier of "AI" was "a computer plays, specifically, Go really well", now that typical ones are quite general it's just a floating signifier people should probably stop using for anything.

I'm not sure that I'm more impressed with LLMs than I am with alpha go.

Alpha taught itself how to play go by playing over and over again. It learned a new strategy never seen before. I find that a lot more intelligent than an static state LLM regurgitating for loops.

It's interesting to see the strange workflows that come from jujutsu users, as someone who works on git workflows.

There's some counterproductive stuff in there from my perspective but at its core you're keeping up a throwaway integration branch, which is helpful practice if you'll ever care about an integration. It's annoying with git because the interface for updating your throwaway integration branch is very clunky and easy to get wrong.

I think you should revisit the word "just", its presence in the comment you're trying to discuss, and how it's used.

To me it seems it's used with the intent "They don’t just <do X>, they <do Y>," implying that Y is a proper superset of X. My point is that X is in fact a superset of Y, making the most charitable reading "They don’t just <do X>, they <do X in more words>."

Is there another potential reading of "just" that I'm missing?

While this is a perfectly fine policy in the space of possible policies (it's probably what I'd pick, for what it's worth) the arguments being given for it leave a bad taste in my mouth.

It's not the argument the maintainer gives. I unironically suggest at least use AI to summarize that thread if you don't bother reading it before commenting.

That seemed like just a curiosity after they already decided on the policy.

You can pry my em dash—short for "Emily's dash", after the poet—from my cold dead hands.

Close, it's the width of the 'M' from the the famous author EMdash Forster's name. ;)

Not even close. It's named after the em drive, after how fast it helps your thoughts flow to written word.

I thought it was a reference to "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caedite_eos._Novit_enim_Dominu....

How is there this much misinformation out there about this? It's a neologism based on the character M from the James Bond franchise. Do a little free-association from the phrase "Bond—James Bond" and you end up calling that the M-dash.

Until that relatively recent shift, it was named the Morse Dash—you'd think because of the "long" glyph when rendering Morse Code, but no, it was named for the 17th century English Catholic martyr Henry Morse, for reasons lost to time.

Just like with NFTs, this is all going to discredit the actually sensible use cases for years.

Which sensible use cases?

Money laundering.

that plus pump n dump/hype train investing.

...still haven't seen single sensible use case for one that couldn't be solved easier/better/cheaper normal way

I’m reminded of the Carl Rogers therapy app that was developed in the 80s.

People would type in their problems and how they were feeling. The application had very very simple logic that would follow up with a set series of statements or questions. Things like “that sounds tough” and “how does that make you feel?”.

People reported great satisfaction, even if they knew that the application had no smarts behind it. Because of course the whole time the magic of therapy lies in verbalizing your problems, with very little actively done by the therapist.

Now you can pay an LLM subscription for a service that likely produces worse results since it is tuned to be aggressively (and insidiously) sycophantic.

The process is called Socratic questioning (or rabbinical reasoning).

You can implement the same thing in python-aiml for free.

https://github.com/paulovn/python-aiml/blob/master/aiml/botd...

Digital goods- like digital rights for movies, games, etc. only none of the big players would ever give up their walled gardens/licenses instead of ownership for content etc.

Neither! A logistic curve is just an exponential with a carrying capacity - it is still an exponential! There is no reason to believe that AI capability, which grows logarithmically with the handwaved-resources used on it (roughly, this is compute and training data), grows, has grown, or is growing exponentially!

I know this sounds like "the moderate position" to people but you are accepting that something logarithmic is somehow in fact exponential (these are inverse functions of one another) based on no evidence or argument.

Here is Sam Altman, the one man in the world with the most incentive to overstate AI capability, accepting the extremely-well-known logarithmic growth: https://blog.samaltman.com/three-observations

What we see in reality is a basically-linear growth pattern due to pushing exponentially more resources into this logarithm.

Yeah, what you're going to get is more efficient proofs: you can do induction on one case to get results about elementary functions. Not sure where anyone's getting computational efficiency thoughts from this.