atari vcs (from before it was rebranded to atari 2600)

but they didn’t have their execution modified. What got updated was datafiles, not code. This is just a shitty excuse by google.

exactly. But what if there were more than just three (the infamous “guardrails”)

on the contrary, “temperature” is intentionally injected randomness in the process.

edit: which, to be clear] is not a good thing

tfney aren’t even errors. They are the system working as designed. The system is designed with randomness in mind so that the model can hallucinate, intentionally. The system can’t ever be made reliable, not without some sort of paradigm shift.

the downvote wasn’t from me

so?

this isn’t low effort. These are freaking great!

three, point, oh

for copy and paste.

Not one, but three point oh!

what trend? they made thi ipod, they made the iphone, they’ve been late, really really late, for very basic features on either. And a bunch of just plain bad stuff.

Butterfly keyboards, magic mouse, touch bar on macs, not cherry picked at all. There are tons of examples

so no. Before llms came around, lots of people were hobby programmers. We learned. Sorry to be blunt, but being a hobbyist is not an excuse. The best programmers I know are hobbyists

i haven’t come across many. But i have written a lot.

by “completing it” do you mean having something that seems like it works? Or something that you know works? If it’s the former then you’ve just had the computer do the easy part (creating something) and skipped the actually hard part (making it robust).

Are errors handled properly, is all input being validated? If using https, are you actually verifying certificates? This sort of thing

cryptic != complex. Are they cryptic? yes. Are they complex? not really, if you can understand “one or more” or “zero or more” and some other really simple concepts like “one of these” or “not one of these” or “this is optional”. You could explain these to a child. It’s only because they look cryptic that people think they are complex. Unless you start using backreferences and advanced concepts like those (which are not usually needed in most cases) they are very simple. long != complex

the “guardrails” they mention. They are a bunch of if/then statements looking to work around methods that the developers have found to produce undesirable outputs. It doesn’t ever mean “the llm will not bo doing this again”. It means “the llm wont do this when it is asked in this particular way”, which always leaves the path open for “jailbreaking”. Because you will almost always be able to ask a differnt way that the devs (of the guardrails, they don’t have much control over the llm itself) did not anticipate.

Expert systems were kind of “if we keep adding if/then statements, we would eventually cover all the bases and get a smart, reliable system”. That didn’t work then. It won’t work now either

yes, “complex” regexes are quite simple too. Complex regexes are long, not difficult. They appear complex because you have to “inline” everything. They really are not that hard.

I would support them joining. But of course no fucking tantrums will be tolerated. You will abide by the same rules as everyone else.

does the regex search for what you wanted to? Does it work in all cases? Can I be confident that it will find all instances i care about, or will I still have to comb the code manually?

tests can never prove correctness of code. All they can prove is “the thing hasn’t failed yet”. Proper reasoning is always needed if you want a guarantee.

If you had the llm write the regex for you, I can practically guarantee that you won’t think of, and write tests for, all the edge cases.