Consider looking at ChatScript for these kind of formulaic language matching -> variable extraction. It’s deterministic and instantaneous compared to any LLM
Mailing lists were never "fine". Discoverability is terrible. People change email addresses all the time. Subscription management remains an unsolved problem. Inboxes fill up. Legitimate messages are falsely flagged as spam.
Perhaps there are real problems with algorithmic feeds. But going back to mailing lists is simply impractical and never going to happen.
How can you possibly determine the efficacy of this operation?
Is it not more likely that there is a grassroots rejection of building the infrastructure to replace labor, with no upside to the American worker? And a few hundred Chinese sock puppets join in the online fray, but this conversation is not just happening online, and Chinese propaganda is not raising electricity rates or burning illegal natural gas generators.
While ethanol requirements are a hand out to corn farmers, it’s false to say the majority goes into gas and plastic, an equal share (~40%) goes to animal feed.
Also "fixed and deployed; your trip should now go Cabrillo → 23rd → Geary". The snappy sentence at the start and the unicode arrows are both pretty big flags for AI writing.
Obviously it's fine to use AI for projects like these, but copy-pasting the response from a coding agent doesn't quite sit right with me.
No, as someone who writes a cycle routing engine by hand, this stuff is endemic when dealing with the trifecta of complex traffic regulations, inconsistent mapping data, and user preferences.
Looking at the repository [1], there are very strong signs for this being LLM generated. The README.md just smells of LLM tells, and Claude Code is being listed as "contributor".
I agree that the tone the parent commenter used wasn't the nicest but unfortunately, factually he is correct.
Right, the doomsayers suppose as soon as you reach 10^16 connections across silicon you’ll end up with a living mind with goals of its own… poppycock I say
No, the doomsayers say that reinforcement learning is a way to get fully automated Goodhart's law.
i.e. the AI won't come up with the goals itself, we cause its goals whatever they happen to be, those goals are different from the ones we wanted, we remain essentially ignorant of the difference between what we said and what we meant until after it goes wrong.
This happens at basically every scale, so we've already seen it in toy model AI before the invention of the Transformer models or even considered as many as one thousand parameters.
Large models still go wrong, they just happen to go wrong with more complext tasks. We had to figure out how to make them not-wrong with the smaller ones (like coding) to make them capable of bigger errors (like hacking out of their sandbox).
Well said, I suppose I’m strawmanning, or, just making a distinction between different kinds of doomsayers.
From your position, catastrophes will be the fault of whoever was dumb enough to put a probabilistic system in charge of critical infrastructure. Totally different fear than runaway intelligence and takeover.
Mm. Slightly different fear, not totally different.
The AI labs use reinforcement learning to train LLMs, and have spent a while now giving each new generation of LLM an increasing role in training the next one. If not quite an "intelligence explosion" as yet, it isn't unreasonable to already describe it as an "intelligence conflagration".
"AI psychosis" is also essentially a reinforcement loop, on how much LLM output makes users feel warm fuzzies about how competent the AI is, which was a proxy for (and yet actually different to) how competent the AI really is.
(Aside: "a probabilistic system in charge of critical infrastructure" was never not true, this is one of those phrases people use rhetorically, but it's kinda a thought-terminating cliché given how often human thought randomly fails us. The difference is which things fail how often, not that it happens at all).
You can’t convince me that this administration isn’t intentionally driving this country into the ground. Our whole economic growth story is basically that our tech companies can provide service to 8 billion people, not just 0.35 B Americans. Moves like this makes buying American (or even just watching YouTube) toxic.
Edit: not to mention moving our allies toward not complying with US sanctions at all, reducing American soft power
reply