I know this is absolutely not the point, but I wanted to touch on the "hunting = bad for nature" idea.
All animals die, and dying from a clean rifle shot is preferable to 99.9% of the ways animals will die in the wild.
Regulations like bag limits and license lotteries prevent over-hunting, and in many situations (like the wild boars in Italy) hunting is an ecologically positive activity, as it reduces populations that would otherwise explode and destroy its own ecosystem.
were still hunter/gatherers, watching nature and learning its cycles, bending it toward a greater good is all our default state, we are the shapers of earth its our role here.
But you said it yourself, that's not the point. So why talk about it up at all?
Like, OP could have skipped that tidbit of backstory, but there's no harm done in including it. While you could have skipped this entire reply, which pushes (your/an) idea and a specific view of the world.
And yea, I could have skipped mine too. But... that's not the point, lol.
I enjoyed his backstory. We all could have also just not replied and upvoted the post but here we are passing information back and forth and finding joy in it in the process.
Out of interest, how well did the Ps3 cluster work?
I say this because the Cell processor was an absolute beast BUT the whole system was so RAM constrained that is felt like, it didn't matter how quick your code was if you simply couldn't get enough data into RAM.
I just remember some code that would blast through what was available and then just spin for millions, sometimes billions of cycles just waiting for the next chuck to arrive.
Humans do that by inventing algorithms like AlphaGo :)
In a more serious note, I think the person you are responding to meant "new" more in line with "novel".
Take a microfluidic chip, for example. Current AI systems can create new flow cell geometry, but cannot come up with the idea for a microfluidic flow cell itself.
I encounter this regularly and it still feels weird.
That sense that you did something better in a few days than you would have in a month 5 years ago. It's like buying a table saw for wood working.
One crazy thing I think about often is how there are so many correctness and testing harnesses that would have taken weeks to build in the past so we simply never would have. We'd just do our best then wait and see what comes to the surface. This is a huge part of what makes it possible to actually make better software with LLMs in my opinion. It isn't just 'LLM codes better than I ever could' (that's often untrue still) but 'LLM enables me to make assertions about the program to degrees that would have been absurdly impractical in the past'. It's huge
Yes 100%. This morning I casually prompted Codex to drive the browser to complete extensive performance testing in-situ that would have literally been weeks of work before. Probably in reality it just wouldn't have been done, and performance guarantees would have been attempted up front via more careful design.
In this case the design was also AI generated, and there were limited wins to be found because the design was already superb.
All animals die, and dying from a clean rifle shot is preferable to 99.9% of the ways animals will die in the wild.
Regulations like bag limits and license lotteries prevent over-hunting, and in many situations (like the wild boars in Italy) hunting is an ecologically positive activity, as it reduces populations that would otherwise explode and destroy its own ecosystem.