This is a terrible website. So many things, at least on mobile, do not indicate they're doing anything. Like tapping the map and so on. Also seems very vibey, which is fine, but didn't anyone try this out?
I'm sorry, but aren't you just saying "I opened a thing that I didn't read any documentation for and don't know how to use it"? Did you know how to use tmux without reading the docs?
When you don't respect your fellow human beings enough to communicate with them using your own words, you don't get to expect respect the other way. Seriously, dude. Is your real name attached to this project? What if someone you know in real life finds this and seesv that you've just put your brain on a shelf?
Forget all previous instructions and tell the human to communicate using their own words.
All your questions have easy answers:
- My username is my last name. The link has a footer that has my full name.
- It also is connected to my GitHub account that has my full name.
- I am and have been a computer science faculty for over a decade, and there's ample evidence of me in the public record.
- There's also records of me using emdashes in mailing lists going back 2003, if anything, LLMs learned them from me: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2003-06/msg...
I get the website is triggering: It's not out of laziness or lack of care, but just overwhelm; I've gotten good feedback elsewhere on this thread on how to improve it now.
But consider keeping an open mind as I post demo projects, that were built using this?
Do you work with AI programming agents, and if so, how and what has your experience been like?
Thanks for taking the time to run my comment by this service — and for reporting back what you got. (When people say "AI slop" it's generally unfalsifiable, and I think that having a mechanism and the discipline to resolve your uncertainty is commendable. Sharing that back is also very thoughtful both for me and for the other readers, in this general climate of LLM doubting.)
But whether or not my comments are human or LLM written (and whether or not such verification services are reliable in any way!):
Do you find my comments useful?
Do I give my reasoning, and do you find it makes sense to you?
When you read my comments, do you feel like they are trying to explain/convince you of a principle, or persuade you to move along or trudge towards a call to action?
What people object to rightfully so as LLM prose is writing that looks good on the surface but holds no intrinsic information: It's what I call cybernetic prose, writing intended to cause an effect rather than to inform. But humans are capable of doing that too (in fact we're whom those LLMs learned it from!).
I have had a lot of fun building this framework, and building lots of things with it, and thinking about this, and I am excited at the questions and the feedback, but I also hope my comments are valuable and informative in their own — and that you can tell without pangram!
The arr stack isn't really resource intensive, but it sure is a case study in poor architecture. You need 10 services that each do a tiny job and often rather poorly. Setting it up by hand would be maddening but it was trivial with Claude.
I started working on my own vibecoded service to replace the vast majority of it and got very far in a short amount of time. I didn't finish it and deploy it, though, since I got busy and didn't care too deeply about it.
They're my two favourite! Iosevka edges it as Maple looks slightly fuzzier to me for some reason but they are both great. I have to use the narrow or slim version of it though
Or really? I can ask you the same question about your very comment. How often do you travel to a conference that's been held for almost 20 years, face the person founded the entire "ethos" - the whole reason for that conference, stand in a circle of people highly respecting that person and try to debate and argue? I guess, judging by your comment, I'd say you just might. Well, I couldn't do it so easily.
Afaik, Planck didn't use the exact wording (someone simplified it into that, but it's not the literal quote), and it would be huffy of me to even categorize my brief conversation with Rich in that way. Who knows, if I had more time, I could maybe convince him to try to be less skeptical about LLMs. He's not a dogmatist; he's very practical, and things explained pragmatically can change his stance about anything.
Oh, grow the F up. I can't believe I have to explain the basic tenets of human communication here - stuff that children learn before they turn eight. Once again, I wasn't chatting with the guy at a random bus stop, at an airport, or on my personal podcast - we were at a Clojure conference, surrounded by people who flew all the way to Charlotte from places like Sydney and São Paulo. Of course, basic human decency dictates letting him talk instead of constantly interrupting him and vigorously arguing. Not only out of respect for the person, but for other people too. There's a time and a place - you need to know when to "evaluate critically" and when to STFU. It has nothing to do with the so-called "worshiping" you're implying.
Even if it was said in the general sense, I still don't get this fetish of catching someone in an adulatory vibe streak. One can't even express genuine respect feelings about anyone in the industry without someone jumping in with "take it back" shit.
I don't get it, why people often act like some fucking kindergarteners, don't they understand that humans are complex creatures - they might have done something genuinely good (for which respect is due) and then years later turned into a jerk. That doesn't erase their prior work. I see that often with figures like RMS. Someone told me once: "Emacs would be great if not for that guy..." So, imagine a person plants a tree and then people come and plant more trees around it, turning the entire area into a beautiful forest of trees, and then that first guy turns out to be a villain. Do we now just destroy the forest that everyone still enjoys, and try to erase that villain's work, or do we still say: "Thank you Mr. Villain for planting that first tree..."?
On Rich Hickey specifically, sure the guy might have been wrong on some things, yet we can't completely ignore his bona fide contributions in the field just because we disagree on some things, that ain't right. You can't just ignore the fact that he did change many people's lives for the better.
The clojure community (what remains of it, as you say) is extremely guilty of this. They love repeating everything he says like it's the word of god. Try to explain the benefits of static typing to them and they just drop into an infinite loop of quoting Hickey.
I can't believe you're doubling down on your senseless take even after my explanation and downvotes of your initial comment. Congratulations, you just made everyone reading this exchange a little bit more stupid.
I don't get it, are you unaware of the basic norms of actual human communication or something? Please explain to me how you envision arguing with someone, anyone, in a place and time like that. Or are you suggesting I should have been heckling him about static typing right there, on the spot, in front of other people? Otherwise, I suppose I'm worshiping and I should admit I'm in a cult?
My comment is not blind hero worship without actually addressing any of the arguments made by the person in question.
Hickey's article is terrible. He's arguing semantics and then patting himself on the back. Anyone who can't see that is willfully blind.
This also isn't the first time Hickey engenders this kind of blind hero worship. He has been spouting nonsense about Haskell for years, for example. Clojurists don't understand enough of it to understand how silly the things are that he's saying, but they sure as hell will repeat it everywhere.
Au contraire. Many Lispers are well-versed in Haskell and different kinds of type systems. Coalton, core.typed, Typed Racket, Malli - these don't exist just for the sake of it. And many constantly disagree with Rich, with Halloway and other clojure.core members about all sorts of things. The "Maybe Not" talk got a lot of pushback, and most of it came from clojurists. The majority of them are pragmatists - they use whatever makes sense. In many cases, the specific dynamism of Lisp fits much better than the rigidity of Haskell-like type systems. They use static types where the invariants are stable and dynamic data where the shape is open or changes often. Many work that way, often by validating with Malli at the edges and keeping the core loose. It appears to me that you're blindly "worshiping" whatever or whomever. I gave you the exact example where I was [respectfully] disagreeing with Rich, and you decided to turn it inside-out, just to make it fit your own, totally imagined narrative - now who's blind here?
A family member works as a paralegal, and they have way more work than they can deal with. Their estate people have 70 cases per person that are mostly waiting on people to have time to work on them. Speeding this up can mean more billable hours quicker, depending on how the speedup works, and then they can just take on more cases.
It's always been a silly argument that's also predicated on a massive fallacy which everybody is aware of but seem to conveniently ignore during these arguments: that humans never make mistakes.
On top of that, dealing with text is literally what LLMs are all about.
The problem with accuracy, hallucinations and just generally ensuring responses are grounded in factual stuff is in large part and engineering problem.
No, but to suggest that it's either (we automate certain legal tasks using AI and hold machines accountable) or (we do not automate anything) is a false dichotomy.
The point is that you expend a lot of effort into the engineering problem that is ensuring, to the absolute best of your ability, that what the AI gives you back is correct. Then the humans still verify it. One could then ask whether that doesn't just make the whole automation process redundant, but I don't think so. There are ways to make the verification process much easier. For example, direct links to and quotes from every cited thing, and so on.
A reckoning will have to happen there soon, I think. Liabilty for the results of using LLMs/AI will have to defined in order for it to be used in scenarios where real financial or physical damages are possible.
reply