dhork

How dare you question King Steven the Turd, Greediest of Pigboys? If he proclaims HTML to be unsafe, it must be so. That's a King's job, to tell the Landed Gentry how to behave....

I thought it was commonly understood that AI is short for Actually Indians

And bring lots of cameras, filming the house from all angles

No, silly, the problem is when it vibrates when you are nowhere near the lane dividers. I don't drive a BMW, I know what turn signals are for.

I can't stand lane assist that tries to keep you in the lane by actually moving or vibrating the steering wheel. To me, it feels like the car is slipping. That shit gets turned off right away. But I have driven some cars where the lane assist just beeps, and doesn't force the wheel at all, I can deal with that.

I find HUDs extremely distracting, they get turned off too.

Adaptive Cruise Control is extremely useful, I love that one.

I can believe that an agent can do 80% of a competent job. But the 80/20 rule posits that the 20% is the hard part, the part that actually justifies your salary. If a human is not going to go in and do that 20% (which might be 80% of the effort), then having the AI do the easiest 80% doesn't gain you anything at all.

In fairness, this was all on a switch, where the commands are very tightly tied to the vendor and their underlying in-house shell. So commands may vary by release greatly. I was already explicitly telling the bot what software version and licenses I had, but ultimately I had to resort to the CLI's help function at times and tell the bot "The command you gave me didn't work. Here's where it broke, and here's the commands it will accept". Given that information, it could (generally) figure it all out.

I have serious issues with being fed confidently incorrect answers.

Except I have plenty of experience dealing with this from humans. (Mainly from the aforementioned new managers, because being wrong with confidence seems to be a key trait to get promoted.) It's been my experience that when you tell an AI "I just tried that and it didn't work", it will accept that more readily than a human would.

Every bit of AI-generated code that I use, even in the smallest and most meaningless context, has to pass my own review first. I have to understand every line, and if I don't I will ask the bot to explain what it did. By the time I am done with it, I can stand behind it just as if I wrote it all myself. I might note that I got AI help, but if my name is on the commit I will not pass the buck on any errors.

I had this experience once. We have a ChatGPT license where I work, and I asked it to configure a switch that I wasn't familiar with. I simply described in words what network architecture I wanted and it did it! It even made some nice-looking documentation.

But, then I tried the new configs, and they didn't work. It turns out there were some key syntax things it got wrong. And the documentation was wrong on top of that, with incorrect diagrams, and when I asked it to fix it it made different errors I the diagrams in different places. On balance, I still saved some time over reading all the manuals and figuring out the syntaxes myself, but only because I made my own documentation with the results that worked. If I had trusted the AI I would be sunk.

I've concluded that AI gives the illusion of competence, like a overly confident new manager. This can be very attractive to a less experienced person. But it's really guessing, just like we all are. It can just guess after actually "reading" all the manuals. I haven't used AI to write anything more than simple configurations and helper scripts. If I did want to use AI for more it would be in more of a pair-programming context. I might have a window open where I describe some things and ask for analysis, but I wouldn't just run anything it does blindly.

Euro-area households hold approximately €440 billion in exposure to the Magnificent Seven — Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta, Microsoft, Amazon, Nvidia, and Tesla

That article is using a bit of AI math there. Or are they overweighting Amazon on purpose?

Interesting that the buyers are willing to pay "top prices" and yet unwilling to spend the money to scan these books non-destructively.

Jesus fucking christ.

I'm sure Grok can make that, too