Are you (at least partially) aligned out of existential fear of repercussions (getting fired, losing your life, going to prison), which LLMs don't have?
Hmm. Examples of horrible alignmnent don't necessarily outweigh the fact that most people, most of the time, mostly behave in a way that is socially aligned. (Though I'm speaking in terms of intent, conveniently ignoring the side effects / negative externalities of our collective behavior.)
This adds to my feeling that LLMs are incredible at storing compressed information and accessing it in a versatile way.
Apart from occasional hallucinations we celebrate their ability to dissect information and to find obscure links between facts. Hence their stunning effectiveness in finding security holes or new approaches to math problems.
Interestingly the generative part - producing the answers - is what we are criticizing a lot: we think the code is verbose, texts have a weird repetitiveness to them etc.
No, they are managers; management and leadership are different things. Being a manager is a set of things that a person is authorized to do on behalf on their employer, "hire, command work and fire" as you said being examples. Leaders nurture their staff so that they work together effectively as a team to achieve goals. Very few managers are good leaders.
I saw (a black & white hand-drawn version of) this image [0] a while back and found it a really effective visual to easily explain the difference between a boss and a leader. (Here's an article that expounds on the topic and has some variants of the preceding image. [1]) I've worked with/for both types and the first type (boss) simply does not inspire loyalty or any interest in "going above and beyond" the bare minimum of absolutely required work from their employees.
The genuine leader type on the other hand often didn't even have to ask employees to put in any extra effort toward their job. Folks just generally went out of their way to try very hard to do their very best work (or damned close to it) for the true leader-type because it wasn't uncommon to see the "leader" right there "in the trenches" with them "getting his hands dirty doin' the work" right alongside them, and it just didn't feel right to not put forth at least the same effort he was.
I think (at least to my mind) the difference (in employee attitudes) is one of respect (leader) vs fear (boss).
they are not “leaders” in the purest sense - they don’t demonstrate characteristics of leading, but rather characteristics of people who strive for power and influence.
yet i also get that, in spite of the deficit of true leadership skills, they still guide the group into a specific direction for better or worse.
Leading in my book is more than having authority to command.
It's setting good examples, seeing the big picture, being able to connect pieces of an organizational puzzle.
Reading Business Insider and chatting with ChatGPT about an article, jumping on the AI bandwagon and avoiding personal responsibility by laying others off for your mistakes isn't leading. It's just authority doing whatever they seem fit.
> I actually really like Android as an operating system, the internals seem remarkably well thought out and ideal for the mobile use case
Just no. I developed for android for a long time and I have seldomly seen a worse and more confusing SDK and code base. I can give you many examples but the core layouting algorithm having quadratic complexity with the number of widgets and the single base-view class having 60.000 lines of code are just the tip of the iceberg.
I stopped in 2018. I realize that a lot has been done since then, but the base code wasn‘t changed, otherwise old apps wouldn‘t run anymore.
My gripe with android is that I think it wastes a lot of resources by being very inefficient in software. Just enable the debug mode to see what portion of your screen refreshes and repaints and stand back in awe while nothing changes and you still get hundreds of repaints.
> Just enable the debug mode to see what portion of your screen refreshes and repaints and stand back in awe while nothing changes and you still get hundreds of repaints.
And you are positive that this hasn't change in almost a decade?
> My gripe with android is that I think it wastes a lot of resources by being very inefficient in software.
As opposed to what? This thread is about Linux on Mobile. Are you saying that Linux on Mobile is a lot more efficient than Android? Like do you get more battery life with Linux on Mobile for the same usage?
So you say that "[Android] wastes a lot of resources by being very inefficient in software as opposed to iOS". How do you measure that? In my experience, people who have smartphone need to charge them every one or two days, and the battery gets worse over time but it usually stays usable for a few years.
If Android was "a lot less efficient", I would expect to see a difference in battery life. Do you?
> Android is largely Linux
Android (the OS) is largely NOT Linux (the OS). And if you compare Android to Linux on mobile, in terms of battery life, it is extremely different. It's pretty much what makes Linux on mobile a no-go for pretty much everyone (in good approximation).
You are allowed to not like Android or the Android codebase, but it is incorrect to say that Android is inefficient.
Regarding the argument about LLMs having difficulties auditing their work:
I wonder whether we are entering the era of throwaway software. Just like cheap plastics and improved processes has enabled us to rapidly manufacture anything we want for a very low price, maybe LLMs give us the same for software. Produce it cheaply and if it breaks throws it away and reproduce it.
> Just like cheap plastics and improved processes has enabled us to rapidly manufacture anything we want for a very low price
Have they? Most of the world production is tied down to expensive factories and machines. Yes, we have more products, but that the result of the global trade, which is a very complex system.
> Produce it cheaply and if it breaks throws it away and reproduce it.
I don't know why everyone would ever wants this. It's been parroted since forever, but the true usefulness of software is to be able to build it once and runs it indefinitely. If some edge case occurs, I fix it. Which is way cheaper than rebuilding the whole thing. The goal is to have something like OpenBSD's ed[0] or dmesg[1], which you only touch every few years or so
Does this make sense with economics of software though? Throwaway products compete with more durable versions of the same product because there is a cost per unit produced that can be minimized by using cheaper materials or production processes that cut corners. With software there is no cost per unit. There might be a market for one-off software that serves a very specific purpose where throwaway software can compete with adapting more carefully engineered software to that purpose, but I am not convinced there is a lot value in this market.
I'm sure this will become the standard. And plastic is an excellent analogy. Maybe we can take it a step further and compare it to on-demand 3D printing.
Why would anyone still use off-the-shelf software when they can have a system that has access to all data, can transform it into any form, and can export it in any format?
After years of thinking that I needed to develop a decent movie management system for my own films or a columnar browser for large CSV files, Claude and Qwen each delivered exactly what I needed in just a day.
This. This is why the burst of posts on HN of “I made this useful tool/crate/application” were just so sad. The old model was getting what the kids now call aura by developing useful open source products: products where it’s far easier for someone to consume the product than write it themselves. We had people posting things as if that model still existed. Dude, you wrote it with an LLM! Posting them (here) is not only pointless, it’s advertising that the person who wrote it isn’t smart enough to understand that I have an LLM too.
On the one hand yes, almost every task I work at now is one off one of scripts I throw away.
The question is - where does the software the spec or the “code”.
A really complex game will probably always be token heavy. At least for the next few years code is still not free.
But certain software is just iterative by design. If we mean we regenerate all the for loops of a game from scratch, sure but I think “code” Is really more spec then implementation, and we’ll want to continue building things through iteration.
And even on the for loop point -
Do you really want to spend millions of tokens rewriting a game every time you need to make balance changes?
Isn‘t this an example for something that will pay off later? Public baths come to mind. Those generally don‘t make sense from an economic point of view and are prohibitively expensive for private owners to build and maintain.
But they pay off by keeping society clean and healthy and prevent loss of workforce from mental or physical disease?
reply