Bob

@rezoundous Not 100% but close to it, both at work and with my personal projects. The code that AI doesn't write I still consult an AI chat bot before writing and have AI review it. I would frame it as AI is involved in 100% of the code and directly writes about ~90%.

So it has been about a year since. Is AI writing 100% of your code?

@Noahpinion @KhoaVuUmn Wasn't he referring to twitter polls?

@KhoaVuUmn Weirdly, given LLMs, he was sort of right (for sufficiently high-dimensional data)

This was peak econ twitter.

@moultano The yellow line is PCA

There's a pattern where people try to calibrate one measure to another using regression, which isn't "wrong" in a predictive sense, but doesn't behave the way people expect unit conversion to work. Every subsequent conversion narrows the range, and the conversion isn't invertible

@Dr_Gingerballs "Predict the next token" is only part of the training of modern LLMs arxiv.org/pdf/2501.12948

What is embarrassing is falling for the endless deception that it is not. It is a stochastic parrot machine because that is its architecture. It’s not even really up for debate (it never was).

@Noahpinion "Great news, our actions hurt our allies more than ourselves!"

Wow, I feel comforted already 😵‍💫

@ChadNotChud True, but I think we're further down the "different approach" path than you might think. Check out JEPA (Joint-Embedding Predictive Architecture) and Mamba (State Space Models).

increasingly clear that LLMs are just a Normal Technology cool and useful, but fantasies that their rate of improvement will continue indefinitely are just that like everything, we’ll reach a point where further improvement requires a qualitatively different approach

"Asked the AI Agent to make a minor change" is the new "tried to move an image in a word doc." I asked you to update the expected return value in a unit test, why did you completely rewrite 5 unrelated source files??

@JeffLadish parksr.substack.com/p/humanity-v-a…

I just don't understand how AI could kill everyone. I get how AI companies will build robotic factories that will make robots which will make more factories and data centers and power plants, and how all of that will expand to consume most of earth's resources to build even more robotic factories and rockets and von neumann probes. Like totally. Infinite money glitch. Of course AI companies will do that. But can someone explain the part where humans all die as a result? Seems pretty implausible. Is it the robotic factories that kill the humans? Or the robots the factories build? Or is it supposed to be some side effect of all the rockets that are launching? It doesn't make sense. Even if the AIs did want to kill all the humans, how would they actually accomplish that? They'll only have control over a few million autonomous factories and a few billion industrial robots and power plants across the earth and then a few trillion von neumann probes leaving the solar system. Even if there were a problem I don't see why we couldn't just pull the plug. Anyway, if someone could explain I'd find this helpful.

@IsaacKing314 We need parenthesis to see what the bi- modifies bi(weekly) - Two (weekly) (biweek)ly - (two week)ly

NIST really needs to take a stand on what "biweekly" means and put an end to this.

Ironically AI could end up driving developer costs up. - Company Vibe Codes a product - Starts making money - Run into a problem that AI can't seem to fix - Need a developer immediately, willing to pay big $$ to get the money printing machine working again.

@Asst_to_the_RM Trump said it best x.com/realDonaldTrum…

One thing I learned early in leadership was that you don’t get to blame things on your predecessor. You get 30 days to assess, plan & improve all the things. After that, bringing up the previous guy just makes you look incompetent. Own the issues, they’re your fault now

@BrianCox_RLTW @SecWar @PeteHegseth "No quarter orders are a violation of the law" In all that pretentious bluster you forgot to actually disagree with anything

Retired Army JAG here. And former infantry soldier & officer. And current law professor. And YOU are full of shit. No quarter ORDERS do violate #LOAC. Giving that order is a war crime even if it's not carried out. But that is NOT an order @SecWar @PeteHegseth gave. And that is why you are full of shit. See, I've also trained hundreds of soldiers on LOAC in the applied context. Thousands, actually. And I've advised commanders & decision makers on LOAC in combat, in Afghanistan as Chief of International & Operational Law for CJTF-101/RC-E (OEF XIV). That's why I know the difference between what SECWAR said in a press briefing yesterday & a war crime. Apparently you don't - so I'll do you a favor & spell it out for you step by step, in simple language that you'll hopefully understand. Let's start off with what Hegseth ACTUALLY said: "It's a mess for them. Who's in charge? Iran may not even know. With every passing hour, we know and we know they know, that the military capabilities of their evil regime are crumbling. They can barely communicate, let alone coordinate; they're confused and we know it. Our response? We will keep pressing. We will keep pushing, keep advancing, no quarter, no mercy for our enemies." (war.gov/News/Transcrip…) Alright, if we consider this "no quarter" observation in context, we see Hegseth's intent is to convey that @DeptofWar is going to exert max pressure on our adversary. We know their military capabilities "are crumbling" & we're not going to back off. Keep pushing, keep advancing. "No quarter. No mercy." See, content & intent are important. This is how we differentiate political rhetoric from war crime. Reality from...bullshit. If we go all the way back to Hague, II (1899) & Hague, IV (1907), the Regulations annexed to both Conventions make it forbidden, "To declare that no quarter will be given" (pic 1, from Hague, IV). Seems legit, right? Isn't that what SECWAR just "declared"? Well, if LOAC development stopped at 1907, maybe you could make that argument. But, it didn't. In negotiations for later treaties, delegates decided to be more clear about what exactly that prohibition should entail. So, next we'll consider 2 later treaties 🇺🇸 hasn't ratified but we were deeply involved in shaping - Additional Protocol I (1977) to 1949 Geneva Conventions & Rome Statute @IntlCrimCourt (1998). As we'll see below, these sources confirm Hegseth's political rhetoric is NOT a LOAC violation or war crime...and US DoW doctrine is consistent with relevant text of these treaties. Let's start with AP I. As we see from art. 40, this treaty clarifies (7 decades after Hague IV), "It is prohibited to ORDER that there shall be no survivors, to THREATEN an adversary therewith or to CONDUCT hostilities on this basis" (pic 2). So, 3 specific verbs to highlight + 1 condition. No ordering, threatening, or conducting (verbs) armed hostilities under condition(s) of NO SURVIVORS. Now, reach all the way back in your memory - like 2 minutes ago - when you read actual text of Hegseth's remarks. Do you genuinely believe SECWAR just ordered or threatened there will be no survivors, even if an enemy IRGC member tries to surrender - or that we are now as a result conducting hostilities on that basis? Be honest. Of course not. And no one in the military is going to hear/read his remarks and think, "SECWAR just ordered me to take no prisoners." Seriously. Moving on from AP I, art. 8(2)(b)(xii) of Rome Statute essentially copies text of Hague IV, art. 23(d) to make "declaring no quarter will be given" a war crime (not pictured). BUT the elements of crimes follows AP I (pic 3), as does DoD Law of War Manual (pic 4). Yes, actual no quarter ORDERS do violate LOAC. Just the order alone is a war crime. But max pressure political rhetoric is not the same as an ORDER "that there shall be no survivors." Which means Sec Hegseth's comments are neither LOAC violation nor war crime. Which also means Rep Vindman is full of 💩.

@dmbkparker Relevant x.com/root_of_trust/…

Listen if someone leads with “I was an Army Ranger” the first question is, “oh cool what Battalion?” When they hesitate or look panicked you’ve learned all you need to know, because you see there are rangers and there are Rangers.

@kristinatastic Sergeants Major

I've been working on this important list for a couple of years now. What am I missing?

@YoungestTheCato @kaimicahmills God explicitly ordered us to rule over animals > God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” Genesis 1:28

@kaimicahmills This would be spitting in the face of God

the ultimate solution is through technology we engineer what has been called a bodyoid: brainless animal bodies that provide as much meat as we desire without harming any sentient beings this would transform medicine - the same platform would allow us to grow organs on demand, eliminate transplant waiting lists, and produce perfectly matched tissues for each patient experimental therapies could be tested on full biological systems without involving conscious animals, regenerative medicine would accelerate as entire replacement tissues become manufacturable in the same way that agriculture turned food from a scarce resource into an abundant one, engineered bodyoids would turn biological material into infrastructure - meat without slaughter, organs without donors, and medical research without sentient suffering

@Satland @ShortnBluntTho animalcharityevaluators.org

@ShortnBluntTho Alright what are the animal rights groups that are actually doing something about this so I can support?

“Tailed docked, teeth clipped, ears notched (no anaesthetic). No daylight, no fresh air, nothing to see, nothing to do and a hard filthy floor.” ~Close all slaughterhouses

@TheAhmadOsman @lauriewired Wow you're a really shitty person

Congrats. You managed to turn a misogynistic post into …an advertisement for NVIDIA? I’m sure they appreciate it. Loving the (literal hundreds) of messages calling me slurs.

@LinkofSunshine They're used under the hood for data structures in C++ and Java. E.g. std::map, std::set, java.util.TreeSet, java.util.TreeMap. All use red-black trees.

So does anyone here actually use Red-Black Trees or did everyone just need to spend a month learning those

@JohnDCook > "In other words, by analog components?" Yes, but it's still not an "analog computer." It's a digital computer because it's doing digital computation.

"Is a computer digital or analog?" "Digital. It's all about 0's and 1's." "How are these 0's and 1's represented." "By voltage levels." "In other words, by analog components?"

@CynicalPublius @defnotwill_i_am Why? You didn't

@defnotwill_i_am Please feel free to attempt to support your opinion with actual facts and logic, if you are mentally capable of such things.

I could not be happier about this. Naysayers will claim that this is about making our senior military officers uneducated. Naysayers will say we are turning off the flow of civilian learning that produced George C. Marshall. The naysayers are wrong. The naysayers assume that in 2026 these schools "educate." They do not--they indoctrinate. The naysayers will point at George C. Marshall. I will point at Mark Milley. Because THAT is the sort of politicized general the current system produces. Under these changes led by SecWar, we will produce HIGHLY EDUCATED senior officers who understand our nation's founding principles, who understand how those principles are embodied in their oath, and who fully understand the DIME-FIL while never losing sight of the fact that THEY are the "M" in that acronym. It is under this NEW system that we will once again produce educated soldier-statesmen like George C. Marshall. Thank you Mr. Secretary.