Did pewdiepie not write a voice to text for his LLM setup?
Thing is, we can talk faster then most of us can type.
Voice + Programming is slow because of all the special symbols. But voice + vibe coding? The ability to tell your LLM to do tasks, while you focus on other parts of the code, without the need to switch tabs/windows.
What about "change the color green on this element (html page), where my mouse is pointing"... Annoying with keyboard if you need to switch windows, very possible with voice.
And LLMs are very forgiving for mistakes, unlike if you want to voice program where every symbol needs to be accurate.
People do not realize that programming as we know it, is going to change.
>People do not realize that programming as we know it, is going to change.
I saw yesterday that I had been approaching software incorrectly. It feels futuristic because it's so fast, but it's still linear. One guy making one thing at a time (with some help from the computer).
But software can now be made so rapidly, that the bottleneck is actually curation. You can now generate a hundred ideas for software and a prototype for each one in the time it takes to make some coffee.
Going through all of it is the part that doesn't scale, it's bottlenecked by the individual. That's the reward function, right? Taste, discernment.
At this point software can grow itself, it can mutate, and it can combine with other software. I think building is entirely the wrong metaphor now.
I think a better metaphor would be a genetic algorithm. You try a bunch of stuff and see what works. Then you combine the best parts.
> You can now generate a hundred ideas for software and a prototype for each one in the time it takes to make some coffee.
Yep ... thinking the old way to make software is going to end.
In the past, we made a framework, then sold that framework for clients. But we always had the issue where client X wanted Y features, client Z want X features ... And over time the framework bloats, you get issues with features that may conflict between clients. Then you start to split the framework maybe for client Z because its too much different. Now your have issues when features or bug need to be fixed...
In todays LLM world, i see it more like custom software per client, with "instruction files"...
You make a custom framework for a client, with the AI writing it based upon a instruction file, that is supplemented by custom requirements for the client. Its written for that client and only that client.
The next client, same ... the next same. If a client sees a feature that they want, you instruct the LLM to update the framework for that client using again, a addendum instruction file.
If you instruction file was written correctly, bugs are going to be on the low end, and most clients do not need constant updates to their software.
A client wants to go to a different company and can not get the source files? That company needs the database files + the original design / analysts and the new company rebuild it again into a new version.
So ironically, we are going to, to a world where custom software is very normal, and cheap.
> I think a better metaphor would be a genetic algorithm. You try a bunch of stuff and see what works. Then you combine the best parts.
Yep, put that in practice last week.
I wrote a database in barely a week and half time, and was "slow" because i made like 5 different versions playing around with clustering, different parsers, more advanced each time (regex, token, lexer-ast) and tons of other features.
When i did not like a version, o LLM, rebuild it using my new updated instructions. O, i do not like the parser as it had issues, lets make a more advance one.
We are not talking toy DB ... full insert/update/delete, joins, CTE, Window function, SubQueries, Index's, alias, ... you name it, all working correctly. If i used my instruction file today, i can make you a custom DB in a day. Two if you need something custom. If somebody told me this 6 months ago, i call you crazy lol
Normally, when you build something, you spend days, weeks into it, especially if its advanced. Your reluctant to just tear it down and restart from zero. Or pull a important component out to rebuild from zero. Because sunk cost ... Now its just a half a day work, a day at worst, and you redid what will have taken you weeks or months. It really allows for a lot more experimenting, finding what fits better as time becomes different vs you on your little keyboard typing for ages, rebuilding, making tests, again and again. When a LLM does it 10, to 100 times faster.
For somebody who is a senior programmers, your actually the most easy to adapt and get the most out of LLMs (and ironically often the most resistant to change to using LLMs). Programmers that do not adapt to the new, are going to be left behind.
That's debatable. If I let my friends impersonate me to use my zoo membership for free entrance, then were clearly defrauding the zoo (obviously that's not high stakes, but I dare someone to argue it's not). If one of a set of identical twins is better at math and takes all the math tests for their sibling, that's pretty clearly academic fraud, again pretty low stakes but fraud is still fraud
Key note because in case someone decides to go bad faith here, I think the gp comments use case of fraud is a positive thing (if a bit dangerous). Redefining a term just because you don't like the pejorative implications is not a positive thing, though.
There are so many things wrong with this thread. At least you make an effort, but the categorical dismissals are interesting as well and probably explain to some extent why so many hackers end up in trouble with the law.
It's pretty simple: they are deceiving the other party that the document was handed to the right person, the consequences of which range from 'meh' to spending 6 years behind bars.
Let's say this was a summons for a court case. Then the judge would believe the papers were served properly, when in fact they were never served. Permission doesn't enter into it here, it is wilful deception by two parties of a third. The same name should not normally be enough to get away with this but assuming the story is real (there are many reasons to doubt this, such as the ID matching the name, but nothing else) it all depends on who does the checking. In some cases you might not even go home without a small detour in case you are found out (for instance, because the person handing the document over is familiar with the real recipient).
So, jurisdiction matters, what that document was matters, whether the permission was granted in writing (procuration), who the counterparty was, what the value of the document was, whether the parties lived in the same state/province or country and whether or not the permission was communicated to the person passing the document to the wrong recipient (probably not) and lots of other factors besides, such as the person giving permission still evading some legal obligation, which - conveniently - the story doesn't relate (and which hinges on what that document was).
And that's before we get into the wilder options of the second person being social engineered because after all, the only way they could be sure that they were acting on behalf of the real recipient would be to check their identity, in person, and with someone who is able to do that in a way that is legally binding.
Linux shells, and that was an exaggeration. The shell is about as general purpose as it gets, but it’s hard to know a priori how to do a certain use case. But if you can explain it in plain language the LLM can do that for you. And at that point maybe you don’t need a gui except to present and manipulate visual output of the shell.
Not quite, there was social spending on things like (simple) roads and temples (which could double as schools), but obviously nothing close to today's (wealthy) standards.
Yet I have to wait 2 months (literally) to have an orthopedic doctor look at my broken foot, by that time whatever could have been improved will be long fucked, or I have to go private and pay 100% out of my pocket. I don't own a car, can't afford kids, can't move out of my old contract: it would triple my rent to get an extra room, as for the pension I'll see when I'm 75 or whatever age they decide to make us slave until.
There are lots of countries with roads and hospitals that don't take that much, when I go to poland or other central european countries it feels like a upgrade, most people own their place, working pays in a way that your encouraged to work more, not less, hospitals are fine and much more accessible than in germany or france
That’s because Palestine Action are a proscribed group.
Whether or not the proscription was correct is irrelevant, the current law means that you commit the same offence showing support for IS or the Terrorgram Collective.
The police can’t simply ignore one proscribed group over another as that leads to all manner of weird and wacky outcomes.
The legislation which causes anyone expressing support of a proscribed group is the authoritarian thing I'm talking about. The Terrorism Act 2000 as implemented is the problem.
Having a law that means merely expressing support of a group, leads to criminal charges is not something I think should be in place in any country that pretends to support freedom of speech.
That's an argument for arresting and imprisoning a bunch of people for criminal damage, not an argument for proscribing an entire organisation and limiting their free speech.
The argument here is not the PA should be let off scot free. The argument is that proscribing them as an organisation is a massive and authoritarian overreaction to their actions.
Is that inaccurate? Unless the goal was to strike terror into the hearts of some insurance companies, in what way does the scale of the damages affect whether this organisation should be proscribed? Should we be proscribing Bernie Madoff next?
"chuck some paint" is a deliberate misrepresentation.
It misleadingly describes the scale, coordination, and intent. It uses a minor detail to trivialize an act explicitly intended to reduce military capacity.
Is there any scale of paint chucking that can realistically represent a terrorist threat? Is there any scale of paint chucking that should lead to proscription? Because that's the key point here. It's not "can they be prosecuted for paint chucking?" (yes, obviously), or "can their paint checking escapades have serious costs or ramifications?" (sure, lock them up!) it's a question of whether their actions constituted such a grave threat to the safety of the United Kingdom that the only way of dealing with that was to make it illegal to even support their group.
If we as a country are so at risk from paint chucking that we're resorting to proscription as our tool of defence, then we have some serious issues.
Although PA was bundled in with two other organisations in the vote, the vote did pass 385 votes to 26, so it seems there was broad support across MPs, not just the cabinet.
reply