Yes, but where does this drive come from?

I haven't the faintest idea, however we can extrapolate from some facts.

One fact is that they have a lot of money. Duh... But also money is the key metric to measure success, so a lot of other people flock around those who have money so that it rubs a bit off of them, that Midas touch.

Suddenly these ultrawealthy are surrounded by an endless wave of gold diggers. The immediate thing that follows is flatter, and then echo chamber.

Now imagine that goes for years and years. Slowly this metaphorical richy's whole world views -- and also how he view himself, his identity and his relationship with the things around him -- gets tied absolutely to that notion that he is right.

For this imaginary person, losing a game isn't just am innocent loss anymore. It's a direct question of his own identity.

I think this explains a lot, but I'm not psychologist so it's just a wild guess.

Working with anything is a breeze.

I'm just not too familiar with refactoring tooling and how to configure it, but there's rarely any reason for me to use something more complicated than sed, and in those occasions I can just use ast-grep.

In all these cases the habit is secondary. It's all discipline and pain.

But I think there is a better relationship to be had with habits. One that isn't unfairly tied to productivity. One that I can just enjoy the struggle until I form that routine, or I build up the familiarity or the skill to do something. That kind of attention changes something fundamental about my relationship with what I'm trying to internalize and make a part of myself. It's to learn to be constantly learning and improving without making it a burden or a chore.

Or in “Oh when the Saints Go Marching In,” the ‘Oh-when’ interval is two tones (four semitones), 400¢, or a major third, the ‘when-the’ interval is another minor second, and the ‘the-Saints’ interval is one tone or a major second. Adding those up we find out that “oh-Saints,” if you just omit the other words, is 700¢ or a “perfect fifth”, so “saints-Go” is a descending perfect fifth, -700¢.

Now you can play all four notes at the same time and you would still refer to these distances between the notes as intervals, but nobody is likely to describe this sound as a bunch of intervals. It is a “I(add 4) chord” in that context and the +100¢ interval between the major third and the perfect fourth is what gives it its spiciness.

So then you have to clarify whether you mean that we are playing one note first and then two notes together second, or are we playing all three notes at the same time, or are we playing all three notes separately.

If it's one and then two, or two then one, the higher note of the dyad will sound like the melody usually, and you'll reckon the interval between those two. People who have really well trained musical ears, instead hear the shift on the lowest note, but it requires training.

If you mean that all three are separated by time, then it's a melody. In this case these first four notes of “Oh When the Saints Go Marching In” would perhaps be described maybe as an arpeggiated major chord with a passing tone, same as I said earlier as “I(add 4).” I'm not actually 100% sure if that's the right use of the term passing tone or whether passing tones have to lie outside your scale or something.

If the three notes are played at the same time, that's a chord, specifically it's a triad chord. You might talk about the stacked intervals in that chord, a major chord stacks a minor third on a major third, a minor chord stacks a major third on a minor third, stacking major on major is augmented, stacking minor on minor is diminished, and there are suspended chords where you don't play either third, so sus2 stacks a fourth atop a second and sus4 stacks a second atop a fourth. So a lot of those have their own names, and some of those names get weird (like to stack a fourth on a fourth you might say “Csus4/G,” which treats the lowest note G as if it were the highest note but someone decided to drop it down an octave).

For what it's worth, I would call that a "half step".

> An "interval" is the difference between two (or more) pitches.

Or,

1 Note/Unison

2 Interval/Diad

>3 Chord

And, I agree an interval is essentially a distance. Distance between three points makes no sense as they might very well lay outside of one straight line. Even they are on the same line.. are we measuring the distance between each distance?

It's ambiguous what that might even mean, but the original poster might think of a collection of intervals which is 0 or more notes with intervals relative to a given root.

For example if you think in integers (pitch set notation):

  m6   { 0 3 7 9 } Minor 6
  5    { 0 7 }     Power Chord
  ma13 { 0 2 4 5 7 9 11 } Ionian
  N.C  { } No Chord/Rest
  °7   { 0 3 6 9 11 } Diminished Seventh/Dim Seven

  .. etc

Also note that 13 means two different things, either the septad above or a pentad of the form 1 3 5 7 13 aka 7(6) "dominant add six"

So in set notation it's:

  ma13 { 0 4 7 9 11 }
  13   { 0 4 7 9 10 }

  Etc..

What we are doing in practice when delegating coding to LLMs is climbing up the abstraction level ladder.

We can compensate bad software architecture because we understand deeply the code details and make indirect couplings in the code. When we don't understand deeply the code, we need to compensate it with good architecture.

That means thinking about code in terms of interfaces, stores, procedures, behaviours, actors, permissions and competences (what the actors should do, how they should behave and the scope of action they should be limited to).

Then these details should reflect directly in the prompts. See how hard it is to make this process agentic, because you need user input in the agent inner workings.

And after running these prompts and with luck successfully extracting functioning components, you are the one that should be putting these components together to make working system.

Except that ladder is built on hallucinated rungs. Coding can be delegated to humans. Coding cannot be delegated to AI, LLM or ML because they are not real nor are they reliable.

LLM is like a developer without internet or docs access, who needs to write code on the paper. Every developer would hallucinate in that environment. It's a miracle that LLM does so much with so limited environment.

That's way more advanced than just coding interview questions that the solution could just be added to the dataset.

You need first to believe there is value in adding AI to your workflow. Then you need to search and find ways to have it add value to you. But you are ultimately the one that understands what value really is and who has to put effort into making AI valuable.

Vim won't make you a better developer just as much as LLMs won't code for you. But they can both be invaluable if you know how to wield them.

[0] https://developers.google.com/workspace/gmail/api/quickstart...

I’m sure you’re finding some use for it.

I can’t wait for when the LLM providers start including ads in the answers to help pay back all that VC money currently being burned.

Both Facebook and Google won by being patient before including ads. MySpace and Yahoo both were riddled with ads early and lost. It will be interesting to see who blinks first. My money is on Microsoft who anded ands to Solitaire of all things.

You can use AI to assist you with lower level coding, maybe coming up with multiple prototypes for a given component, maybe quickly refactoring some interfaces and see if they fit your mental model better.

But if you want AI to make your life easier I think you will have a hard time. AI should be just another tool in your toolbelt to make you more productive when implementing stuff.

So my question is, why do you expect LLMs to be 100% accurate to have any value? Shouldn't developers do their work and integrate LLMs to speed up some steps in coding process, but still taking ownership of the process?

Remember, there is no free lunch.

You’re not abstracting if you are generating code that you have to verify/fret about. You’re at exactly the same level as before.

Garbage collection is an abstraction. AI-generated C code that uses manual memory management isn’t.

100%. I like to say that we went from building a Millennium Falcon out of individual LEGO pieces, to instead building an entire LEGO planet made of Falcon-like objects. We’re still building, the pieces are just larger :)

jquery was the high point.

Frontend is in such a terrible state that whatever shit code LLM spits out is valid? Give me a break.

Frontend is very fun when you're starting a new project though.

  Frontend is in such a terrible state that whatever shit code LLM spits out is valid? Give me a break.

Anyone admitting in public they use LLM output straight up without careful thought wouldn't get hired by me. But at the same time not everyone is building useful tools that people use... or is a professional.

But still in general I agree the sentiment of any backend dev who avoids modern frontend. The frontend world is the one who created this problem and continues doubling down on JS/React-everything and isolating frontends from backends, for little benefit besides minor DX gains (aka benefiting only the frontend dev, not the product or users).

Of course it's much more complex than that. The nature of the problems that tech now has to solve is different and as stated in the article, Nvidia hit many roadblocks, but I still think if it had healthy competition, other brands would step in and make it more likely for a creative solution to manifest itself.

Moore's Law was an extrapolation on transistor density which is a manufacturing process in a chip foundry. NVIDIA is a fabless company that depends on physical process improvements from companies like ASML & TSMC.

So the competition you're speaking of is happening more at the foundry layer which would be TSMC vs Intel vs Samsung vs China-chip-maker (e.g. SMIC). At the lithography layer, ASML's EUV has no competition from Nikon and Canon.

Roadblocks they've seemed to put on themselves, in the name of market segmentation. There is a huge market sitting between consumer and "professional" GPUs, and nvidia is trying to milk the market as much as they can before any of the competitors get their shit together.

I predict we are pretty close to the death of the GPU as a discrete component. We will have TPUs that live in work stations and data centers as discrete components, and integrated graphics cards that live on the CPU die.

That's is pretty much what happens with anything tech nowadays. Because we see technology as a pure feat of rationality where in fact what we consume are nothing more than cultural artifacts, which will invariably reflect the fundamental problems of the society in which these artifacts are forged. In our case, in the Burnout Society, it's potentializing hyperattention.

For anyone else who wants to read a bit about the man, I found this very provocative:

https://english.elpais.com/culture/2023-10-08/byung-chul-han...

The truth, once discovered, ceases to be new. Does that mean the truth is not worth anything after an initial moment of discovery? Or (this is rhetorical, obviously), is it possible that the things that our mind tells us are worth pursuing/engaging and those things that are ACTUALLY worth pursuing/engaging are not always (or even OFTEN) commensurate?

But most of the time, we don’t actually fully understand things, and intimately reflecting on something will often yield new facets, insights you didn’t have before, and deepen your understanding.

I'd say truth is always being either discovered and recovered, and there's usually not too much difference. There's rarely anything new under the sun.

I'm with you on this.

He had one hit book fifteen years ago and now exists primarily as a meme. One doesn’t really see people deeply engaging with his arguments; they tend to agree that whatever the object of the new book is “a problem” and fill in the details with their own ideology.

Or maybe I’m wrong! I’d be interested in a link to someone actually taking him seriously, whether within or without philosophy.

On which platform is Han considered to be Chomsky 2.0? Any links to this, or to other "hip" critiques of neoliberalism, from him or others? Memes welcome.