Velocity famously being a vector with a direction. Go in the wrong direction you'd have negative velocity.

Your description would be better for the concept of speed (IE the magnitude of velocity or directionless velocity).

Those C-level people won't want to do that. Plus in a competitive economy everyone else can do the same so there will be competition to remain relevant.

1 website won't be enough, you'll need 10 and each site needs 10 times the features or your buyers will look elsewhere.

At the end of the day the C-level person delegates to a techy person, it's not the C suites job to care about font sizes or navigation bar colours.

1) The size of task the AI has been given to do appears to be too big, which is why it looks like a roadmap/aspiration. You can ask it to implement a single feature or even a single part of a feature. Just keep cutting the size of the tasks until you become comfortable with it.

2) You like plans in a particular way following data structures/data etc. have you actually told the models this. It doesn't magically know. For the record the fact that the models focus on the end behaviour covered with tests is the way to to it imo. The actual implementation is less important and can be refactored as you wish fairly easily with the AI with the tests ensuring the feature still works.

I do agree though that the current SOTA models are very keen to just implement absolutely everything straight away without explaining/exploring properly. You can customise it fairly easily by using the various skills/agent/claude files to remember your preferred workflow, imo the agents adhere to theses better than they used to even just a few months ago.

If this were true then it would be impossible for these models to ever exceed the top human level as there would exist no training data that allows them to exceed the top human level.

However, despite there being no training data on ability to beat the top humans these models have achieved it.

> this is why it is important for humans to always have an intimate connection with the code, math, science, chess etc for progress to continue.

This is just you wanting to remain relevant rather than actually based on evidence.

Of course AI exceeds humans at chess, I never denied that. I am saying because chess is primarily a human vs human game, humans will always be learning and playing chess, their games will add to the chess knowledge base, AI also adds to this knowledge base. But programming is not primarily a human vs human activity so there is a risk programmers will forget how to code and all software will be stuck in 2022 because of the training data, this stifles innovation.

I guess I'm contesting that idea you are putting forward that the data from the games these humans are playing, which are at a vastly lower level that the top AIs are meaningfully important for helping the AIs to improve at the top level.

Would more people learning their times tables be helpful for top mathematicians in their fields to get better at the frontier of maths? Probably not right. Same applies here.

Would AIs advance at the same rate for the top level of chess in a world where humans completely stopped playing chess vs the world we have today. I would say they would as the human level data is of limited value to the frontier which is dominated by AI and AI game data, you are claiming that it does.

> But programming is not primarily a human vs human activity so there is a risk programmers will forget how to code and all software will be stuck in 2022 because of the training data, this stifles innovation.

Does it? Or will AI be able to run its own experiments and find better/more efficient abstractions that propagate because they are better and this will find its way into training data for future AI.

I never said human games are meaningfully important for training AI. Human games are still important for the advancement of chess, maybe Magnus Carlson can learn from games between two Super AIs but most humans still learn from games by humans, Grandmasters are continuously developing the opening, middle-game and end-game systems, adding to the chess knowledge base. Every serious chess player still reviews and study games by prominent Grandmasters, every serious chess player documents their own games, writing down every move. All rated games are recorded and added to the chess database that every player can review and study.

>Does it? Or will AI be able to run its own experiments and find better/more efficient abstractions...

Only if it is in the training data.

Are they? Why?

For a human vs human game sure but at the very top level? No of course not because it's all done by AI.

> Only if it is in the training data.

This is trivially not true, as how has AI managed to become better than humans if the knowledge of how to do so never existed in the training data.

We are well past AI can't do X unless X is in the training data. If your claim were true then AI could never surpass human expertise in any field because by definition all the available training data will at best be at the current human frontier and not beyond.

Glad that you finally agree,this is what I was saying the whole time.

> This is trivially not true, as how has AI managed to become better than humans if the knowledge of how to do so never existed in the training data.

AI can do more work, faster, AI it only needs sufficient compute and data. But that does not mean it is more intelligent than humans, it still uses the same code, algorithms, frameworks, protocols etc etc that are in the training data, sourced from human open source code on the web.

AIs are not continuing to get better at chess/go because humans continue to play at levels far below themselves who discover new techniques. They get better because they play against other AIs and discover new techniques that have a higher win rate that way.

I would bet that even if humans stopped playing chess/go and people were still willing to run these AI models against each other they would continue to get better.

Two things can be true AI drastically contribute to the advancement of chess and humans playing against each other also contribute (even if slowly) to the advancement of chess as it has always been since the invention of the game. The point is that because chess is primarily a human vs human game humans will always have the knowledge of chess, unlike with programmers who are giving it up to prompting, and programming being much more complex than chess (checkmate and win) will be stuck in 2022 because of the training data.

If the goal is still eventually the applications elsewhere, we're back to what happens if the AI is simply better at this.

You can probably make an argument that human understanding is better as humans are better at finding new patterns or fundamental new ways of thinking and also applying them to new applications.

However, what if AI becomes better at humans for that as well?

No reason you couldn't have an AI be optimised for advancing basic research and understanding and a second AI to take these results and optimise for finding new applications for these discoveries.

The "if" is the problem. If it happens, then of course, let AI do it. For the moment AI is still bad at those type of tasks [1], so the discussion shouldn't focus on highly conjectural situations. We can't destroy the scientific ecosystem based on vague speculations.

[1] There are real reasons: it is not obvious how to optimize an LLM for doing basic science or other ill defined tasks. On the contrary, optimizing for writing a proof that passes the Lean test or code that passes the tests is a different story.

Whilst the EU in it's current form did not exist until 1993, it's predecessor the European Coal and Steel Community was formed in 1950 with the Schuman Declaration: https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-histor...

The primary goal of this was to prevent another war by joining european economies together economically. It's not 'overthinking it'. It quite literally is the main reason and you can go and read the speeches from the politicians at the time to confirm this.

Heres a direct quote from the declaration itself

> The solidarity in production thus established will make it plain that any war between France and Germany becomes not merely unthinkable, but materially impossible.

The fact that the european powers (with the exception of russia) are largely at peace with each other and haven't had a major war with each other since the second world war is very unusual given european history.

I am talking about the formalization that is specifically the modern European Union. You are talking as if it's some inevitable consequence of earlier efforts.

> Europeans who created the EU knew about balance of power geopolitics so well, they created this slow bureaucratic mess specifically to stop Germany and France sliding back into the same old lethal habit.

I don't think anything you're saying is strengthening this statement that I had an issue with.

The Maastricht Treaty which is what created modern day EU was driven by other concerns, asking Gemini yields: "To answer your second question: No, everyday Europeans in 1992 were not primarily thinking about WWII.

By the time the Maastricht Treaty was being drafted, the public was reacting to a completely different era of history. They were focused on the collapse of the Soviet Union, the opening of Eastern Europe, and the need to compete economically with the United States and Japan in a rapidly globalizing world. The defining event on the public's mind was the Fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, not the end of WWII."

So you are right that the processes that eventually led to the formation of the EU started after WW-II due to concerns related to that war. But specifically the EU as it stands today with its current structure and agreements was not formed due to those considerations. Europe could have continued with the previous arrangements. At least that's my take and I don't think anything you're saying contradicts it. I'll admit to a certain lack of knowledge so happy to learn more about Europe pre-EU or why what I'm saying is still wrong.

EDIT: I guess one can see how the reunification of Germany was a factor that could have made people consider the world wars. That said the creation of the EU was a major change compared to previous arrangements.

EDIT2: When I read the EU site you linked to I get a strong sense of "backsplaining" as if it was written after the fact to appear like the EU was just part of a process that goes back to WW-II. The title says "History of the EU – 1945-59" but in 1945-1959 there was no EU. Didn't the term European Union only show up circa 1992? So this is perhaps the "history of Europe" but not the history of the European Union? I could be totally wrong. I am not European but I did live through these events and follow the news (well, not WW-II but the fall of the USSR, Germany's unification, and the establishment of the modern day EU). What's of interest to me in the context of this specific question/debate is what were the concerns of the Europeans and their leaders entering into the agreements that formed the modern day EU.

It's also not just about WW2, europe had at that point been at major war with itself in some form or another for well over a thousand years with only very brief periods of peace.

Of course by the 1990s it wasn't top of peoples minds because there had been peace for nearly 40 years, which is testament to the success of the original project, it doesn't mean the original goals had disappeared.

The EU has clear predecessor initiatives and organizations that lead to its current form. Just like territories became states in the US, or the League of Nations lead to the UN. This isn’t a complicated concept we see it all the time. Something forms, it molds and changes over time, and eventually it becomes something else. But the roots are still clearly understood and are a part of its history.

The European Union is only a little over 20 years old. The economic and political union of Western Europe is an ~80 year old project that directly led to the European Union. You may as well take issue with people talking about England’s colonies prior to 1776 when discussing US history.

History of everything is a long journey. The OP made a comment re: the EU specifically which I thought was off. And at least so far in this thread my reply seems to have been more accurate.

> Europeans who created the EU knew about balance of power geopolitics so well, they created this slow bureaucratic mess specifically to stop Germany and France sliding back into the same old lethal habit. While clumsy positioning between the US and China is a headache in the present moment for Europe, compared to a tedious Union Europeans prefer reawakenings of 1914 in their backyard. Well at least so far.

This statement isn't talking about "the decades long journey Europe has gone through informed by wars". It is very specifically talking about the creation of the EU (and e.g. its slow bureaucratic mess which are an attribute of the modern EU). I have yet to see any actual support to the idea that the specific step of the formation modern (of the) EU was indeed primarily about Germany and France sliding back into war and that a "slow bureaucratic mess" was the intentional vehicle here. As someone who has lived through these events I have my perspective and it's fine for others to have a different perspective. But if that is the case then I'm still to see that in this thread.

You are painting a picture as if a geographic region inevitably drifts towards the EU, the UN, the USA, etc. This just feels like total nonsense to me to be blunt. These are decisions taken at the time for various specific reasons. Sometimes they go one way. Sometimes a different way. The countries that formed the EU and decided to adopt one currency and open borders (amongst other decisions) took that step for a reason. It was not inevitable. There are and were many other paths forward. And Germany and France going to war, as far as I recall, was not part of the discussion at the time (1992-ish).

Is current day Europe and the EU a product of a history. I mean duh. That was not the point the OP was making.

EDIT: I can see why this would be a sensitive topic for present day Europeans and how the rise of nationalism is a possible threat to the modern day EU. There's definitely ample motivation to paint a certain picture here and tell a certain story. Present day EU was not a given. It passed by a very small margin. Then there was Brexit. It's not a given that there would be more wars in Europe without the EU. Europeans can do what's best for them. Again, my main reason for jumping in is that the comment didn't agree with my memory of the time when all of this was happening, so it feels like a modern day rewriting of what Europe was actually like in the 90's.

I am not European, I am from the US. I saw this conversation and saw you being weirdly obstinate. This contrarian position then digging in regardless of response is not productive.

The original comment was the opposite of my personal experience having followed the events as they happened. The responses to my comment did not really address what I was talking about.

If you make a point (that the formation of the EU is because of X you are very specific about it) then you should be the one who is prepared to demonstrate it somehow. Why is this a problem?

Are you familiar with the topic or you're simply here to tell me that my manners are bad? If you're familiar I'd love to get your input on the actual question.

Why is my position "contrarian"? I am disagreeing with the original comment. For sure. And the reason I am persisting is that this comment seems wrong and I don't want to just let it go. It's important enough. FWIW I asked another random person whether my take on the EU's formation made sense to them (who was around at the time) and they agreed with me. It's definitely possible that I'm missing something profound but if I am then those taking the other position should spell it out. Maybe the OP meant something different. The OP didn't even weigh in.

@jpleyden98 jumps in with: You're just showing your ignorance and lack of knowledge about the history of the EU. Directly linking modern day EU with "European Coal and Steel Community was formed in 1950". I don't think that's right. At the very least it's missing a lot that happened in between.

> Its not that Europeans havent read Mearsheimer. its that for the best part of three hundred years the whole of Europe has been trying that same realist script until there was nothing left but total ruin across the entire continent. Europeans who created the EU knew about balance of power geopolitics so well, they created this slow bureaucratic mess specifically to stop Germany and France sliding back into the same old lethal habit. While clumsy positioning between the US and China is a headache in the present moment for Europe, compared to a tedious Union Europeans prefer reawakenings of 1914 in their backyard. Well at least so far.

Back to the original comment I had a problem with. This isn't some minor detail. It's pretty important. This history matters. At least I think it does.

Let's just add the actual preamble to the Maastricht Treaty that discusses at least some of the rationale: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Treaty_on_European_Union/Prea...

So ignoring my bad manners and my apparent ignorance. Where is the support to the idea that the Europeans created the EU as it stands today "they created this slow bureaucratic mess specifically to stop Germany and France sliding back into the same old lethal habit" ? I'm happy to learn something new today. When I try with AI it seems to agree with the point I am making: "Treating the 1993 Maastricht Treaty as a simple continuation of the 1950 Coal and Steel Community is a common oversimplification. While the underlying desire to keep Germany anchored to Western Europe remained a constant thread, the actual decisions made in 1993 were driven by a vastly different geopolitical crisis and economic reality.". If the OP just talked about the post-war European integration then I'm in complete agreement. To just project that to modern day EU feels like a very big stretch to me. But a quote from the specific individuals involved in the formation of the EU circa 1992 would definitely help me change my position. Again, this feels like a pretty big deal to me in terms of why the EU exists as it does today and understanding Europe.

EDIT: Also worth looking up the thread to what OP was responding to:

> The general population has 0 understanding of international relations.

And I think he's absolutely right.

Again, not that the wars in Europe don't cast a shadow today. But Europe has moved past that would be my take. Obviously not Putin I guess. But we digress.

The entire thread is a mix of politics/opinions etc. What I was trying to contribute is what the world was actually like during the formation of the EU from my personal experience and that it was not primarily driven by WW-II. Now it's possible my personal experience is wrong but hey, at least it's something that's not pure politics/opinion?

EDIT2: When you say where we got here is a process over time how is that not something that is just true? Yes, everything today everywhere is a result of the process of history playing over time. The EU was not a predetermined outcome. That is not the question. Is the EU today (and in 1992) primarily concerned with European wars or with the world?

EDIT3: To repeat what I'm not arguing with:

- Post WW-II sentiments and agreements were definitely driven by trying to ensure that a similar war does not repeat (more specifically around Germany).

- Before the EU was established in 1993 there were various cooperation arrangements in Europe that trace their history back to WW-II and can be seen through the lens of evolution.

- Where I disagree is the persistent weight of WW-II in the decades that followed vs. immediate after the war. More specifically the applicability to today's politics and geopolitics. In my impression the 60's until the fall of the USSR were dominated by the cold war and not the worry of new wars with Germany or France for example. The EU itself is a step function that was not a given and was driven by a wide array of reasons. The EU today also has a wide range of concerns. I also wouldn't compare the EU's formation to the USA or the UN. That said I can see how on some level the erasure of nationalism removes the motivation for wars that stem from said nationalism.

If you can't tell which one is better then how can you make any assumption about performance?

For all you know performance is the same.

So many people complaining about something they quite literally have zero evidence for.