This is a wonderfully concise description of why software testing, especially GUI testing is cursed by dimensionality.
Type checking, borrow checking, invariants, hell even MISRA rules are all constraints imposed to reduce unmanaged state in programs. I like them for software reliability because they can help keep the complexity demon locked in the crystal.
I've had a couple of experiences in the past month where I do respond to the enthusiastic sales engineer's check-in with a genuine product question, only to receive an immediate, lengthy, and subtly wrong LLM generated response. It feels gross.
Two comically bad lines in an AI-generated spam email I recently received:
"Saw on LinkedIn that you spoke Spanish. I've heard that the way "¡Qué chévere!" brings such energy and brightness to a conversation is uniquely charming. Have you had a chance to practice it recently?"
"Develop a compliance automation tool that adapitates to changing regulations, reducing overhead costs while ensuring secure and efficient investment programs."
No human would ever see my "limited working proficiency" of Spanish on LinkedIn and say something like the first line! And the second? "Adapitates" is not a real word, it's a hallucination. https://old.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1d8gc6x/did_chatgp...
Sales isn't the problem, and most people are tolerant of some level of sales. I've gotten unpersonalized cold outreach from a data replication company that actually made me interested in the product, because it was short, to the point, and (as far as spam emails can be), authentic.
For the recruiters, a really good way to tell if you are being LLM'd is to put a little special watermarking sauce in your LinkedIn profile current company/position. For example, if you are a database engineer at some specific government agency, in the current position, you'd put something like "DB Engineer" at "Government". A quality recruiter will dig more, maybe look at your actual resume you have linked from your static site or whatever and come up with a good greeting in an email. A bot/LLM will simply insert that generic text into the direct message or email - "your position at government".
One can even go as far as entering something with even more of a watermark. An example: Adding more spaces in the role, like "DB Engineer" with two spaces instead of one. Using the Alt + (Numpad 255) unicode instead of a regular space is a bonus here.
Doesn't always work, but anecdotally I've noticed it will more often than not in differentiating automated garbage.
IIUC the input to LLMs is tokenized not on word boundaries but some kind of inter-syllable boundaries, because then whatever the model associated with "task" will also apply to "tasking", "tasked", "taskmaster", etc for example. So a model making up compounds that don't exist would be fully possible and even desirable, especially since real humans do it with English all the time.
Was the main reason you were interested in it because you actually could see yourself using the product? Rather than because it was short and to the point?
Please consider responding and telling them how you feel and providing feedback in whatever feedback forms that accompany the ticket.
Every company on Earth is exploring this tech and if we don't give them strong signals when they fuck it up we are just dooming our future selves to this garbage.
Where do you work that this is an effective strategy?
In my experience telling a vendor something is broken wastes my time and has no effect on the vendor. I don't know whether sales don't care or sales can't make dev changes. The only exception is when I can contact the devs and I know the devs have a history of fixing problems.
I used to work in customer service in a big tech company, what you are told to do is to reply with a sorry message and to fill a ticket but the ticket is not actually handled, it's just there to be recorded and maybe they will lookup it up by the end of the quarter.
Pay me so I'll provide feedback. Otherwise stop wasting my time with unwanted spam.
You are wasting my time, not yours, because you automated your spam workflow. The only strategical response is to flag your emails as spam ans to block your emails in the future.
Everything else is a losing game strategy because there are more spam emails per day than available time already.
You misunderstand. Think of it from a data standpoint.
What they have. Ticket. Feedback.
If they see tickets with certain feedback scores, some rep's score will go down and some manager's score will go down and if enough people do this (it literally takes a 1-2 digit amount of people in most cases), someone will raise an eyebrow and ask some questions and read the <99 responses that came in about this topic.
Since so few people actually respond to feedback, anyone who does has a massively outsized impact on the numbers that get reported inside the company, and the messages that get passed around inside the company.
I should clarify that when I say "Feedback" it does not mean yelling at a support rep, it means responding with a low score or a frowny face or whatever metric in their system that indicates quantitative disapproval.
I'm not talking about telling them that something is broken, but moreso telling them that you are disappointed. They only care that something is broken insofar as it affects their sales. A soured customer or potential customer, or famous person, or professional, or anyone else, is a long term drag on the reputation of a company. Much more than a silent customer that does nothing.
Just do something instead of nothing. Mark as spam. Post a negative thing. Email them. Post on social media. Just do something instead of nothing. Show your disapproval out loud to everyone instead of silently accepting it and moving on. Please.
Also, being a victim is by definition a waste of time because you didn't ask to be a victim. You can be a victim and quietly take it, letting it perpetuate and condemning both your future self and those you care about, or you can be a victim and fight back, refuse to take it, and defend your future self and those you care about.
This behavior is that of a bully and abuser. Bullies and abusers will only listen to a slap in the face, not to quiet submission.
I think you are saying we should blame the victim.
Bullies want you to fight back because now you're playing their game according to their rules which they know how to win and you implicitly authorise them to hurt you and often you have handed them a moral highground excuse they can spit back at you later. Bullies don't "listen" to a slap in the face, instead they escalate further: good luck!
To win against a bully often requires changing the game so that you can win by other rules.
However not everyone has the ability/practice to handle conflict - a friend talking back with a female bully recently had a panic attack which was a horrific side effect for them.
The core value proposition of GitHub, GitLab, etc is to provide a nice GUI atop git. That's huge. I think that user-studies to improve one of the many existing foss git GUIs would be much better use of brain than deprecating git checkout.
> Remember than when the AIDS epidemic broke out. The doctors and labs didn’t help much. People took things in their own hands and tried stuff, and in the end, they found things that worked.
What? how did people take things into their own hands?
>> Remember than when the AIDS epidemic broke out. The doctors and labs didn’t help much. People took things in their own hands and tried stuff, and in the end, they found things that worked.
What??? It was the FDA that blocked access, not doctors and labs. It was the doctors and labs that were trying to find treatments. Peptide T and AZT had several studies going on.
Hydrogen electrolyzers perhaps makes sense as a backup load: something that can be turned on when there's too much electricity production (as is increasingly the case in renewable-heavy grids). But then what to do with the hydrogen?
I agree that is a better use for excess power than just dumping it into a resistor, but why go through all the extra effort? Batteries are getting better and better and better, and choosing to use excess generated power to generate hydrogen seems like one step backward. Why waste so much power on a doubly inefficient process (losses from hydrogen production and then again during use) when you could just, you know....store the actual pure energy you need for everything else?
Even barring a great battery, there are dozens of other great ways to store energy. Pumped hydro is 80%+ efficient, and all you need is a pump and a hill, vs hydrogen electrolysis, which maxes at 80% efficency, and then hydrogen combustion, which is like 40%, on top of all the exotic equipment required for manufacturing.
By all appearances, it just seems like an absolute no brainer....I really dont get it
> By all appearances, it just seems like an absolute no brainer....I really dont get it
I understand the policy around hydrogen (Bipartisan Infrastructure Law allocated $8 billion to hydrogen production) as a technological pivot for the United States which leads the world in oil and gas extraction and logistics tech. The US has a lot of gas handling experience.
Optimistically, green hydrogen will diversify the energy supply, bringing "energy resilience", a key policy buzzphrase. Batteries and pumped hydro are undeniably superior in round trip efficiency, but hydrogen does have some desirable properties such as relative ease of overland transport, very long term storage, and being a chemical precursor for some industrial processes.
Pessimistically, green hydrogen is a way for oil and gas companies to siphon many taxpayer dollars while doing superficial work similar to the compliance EVs of the 90s and 00s.
I'm optimistic mainly because my PhD in electrical engineering is being funded partly with the green hydrogen taxpayer dollars. Shout-out to my fellow taxpayers and my advisor's grant writing skills! I'm working on power electronics which are fundamental in renewable energy and by extension green hydrogen electrolysis.
> ... bringing "energy resilience", a key policy buzzphrase.
The word "buzzphrase" implies that you think energy resilience is not as relevant as the proponents want to make it seem. Correct?
I've been thinking for years that resilience of the overall energy system is a factor that many green energy transition people appear to systematically overlook.
As I see it, chemicals based energy systems have a huge advantage over electricity based energy systems through their property of bringing large amounts of storage (and thus capacity to bridge outages) with them basically inherently.
The electrical grid is a delicate life support system and I'm convinced that it will - even in the far future - depend heavily upon chemical energy storage and transportation to give it resilience.
As far as I've heard the electrical grids in the US and Europe have come close to breaking points a lot more often over the last few years, compared to before. And even though huge sums of money are being invested in their build-out and maintenance, the supply situation with critical components such as transformers is apparently dire.
Alltogether makes me think that chemical energy storage (and thus, hydrogen, power-to-gas, ammonia, and such) will have a dead-sure place in energy systems.
Very enlightening! I appreciate the reply. Hydrogen as a sort of stepping stone away from gas and oil makes sense, as does creating another pillar for energy resiliance.
https://fashion.sina.cn/s/fo/2019-04-28/detail-ihvhiqax54682...
https://www.zhihu.com/question/337494558
https://zhidao.baidu.com/question/931153568796681979/answer/...