Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | oldmanhorton's commentslogin

The change with this justification absolutely exists and has existed for a long time, but this justification only works for small changes (in the past and still today). Don’t come to me with a huge refactor or new feature and this explanation, which is happening more and more recently (it’s an easy strawman to make and hard to prove, but I certainly see it in practice).

Some of us don’t use an adblocker because we are aware that ads are how most websites get paid for on the internet. I pay for sites I care to support, but for something like LinkedIn, I’d rather have their monetization scheme push me away from any usage than block the ads and make the site slightly more palatable.


No, ads mean the customer is the advertiser, not me, the user, and align the business' interest with the advertiser's, against my own.

I'd rather the site asked me to pay directly, or not at all. I will not see any ads I can avoid.


I think this is a pretty unfair takeaway when AI generated text is often so wordy, flowery, and full of jargon and abstract nouns. People are never going to read East of Eden or academic dissertations as quickly as direct, simple language either


It's hard to talk about it in a very general way without being wrong a significant percentage of the time.

I suspect we're both right, just on different occasions.


I always wonder why people generalize AI writing like this. If it's giving you responses like this that you don't like it's as simple as prompting it to give more succinct answers that aren't full of jargon and abstract nouns. I have chatgpt set to 'Efficient (concise and plain)' in the settings which works well to prevent this. And if efficient isn't enough some brief custom instructions will do wonders.


Because this is a thread about other people's usage of AI, so how I/you personally use it is irrelevant because we still have to deal with everyone else pasting AI, in which case it is generally long and wordy.


You’re not a novice, there are a lot of us who know exactly what we are doing and see this as a huge downside. We are just being told to go faster, faster, faster lest we miss out on… something?


Both ahead of time compilers and JIT compilers often perform autovectorization of tight loops. The problem is that lots of hot loops are not necessarily simple loops, and in particular a lot of source code is written in a way which uses sequential dependencies that can’t be modeled in SIMD code. Aside from undefined behavior in C/C++, most compilers will fail to autovectorize because doing so would very slightly change the behavior of your code in a very hard to understand way.


Surely a high level language can own the contract of making sane choices of when to auto vectorize and when not to (or just inefficiently auto vectorize - that is fine too!)


That’s like saying “surely a high level language can solve the halting problem.”

Yes, it can, but only by eliminating the features that make it Turing complete. It’s relatively easy to vectorize map with a closure that can’t mutate anything but once you have nontrivial control flow, the compiler can’t make those kinds of assumptions.


It’s really not! We’re not requiring the language to make optimal choices, just that it convert the same code to these different paradigms (and honestly you could just brute force run the 12 versions and choose the fastest one). Absolutely no theory barriers apply!


You should design it!


Some kind soul pointed to Intel’s https://ispc.github.io/ which is basically this.

Missing some features but roughly has the idea. Keep faith with human ingenuity!


A year and a half later? Does that really count?


Yes. It's a direct consequence. Such things just move slowly.


I feel like this can be explained in part by “I like using it for myself, but I hate when others use it.”

When you use ChatGPT for yourself, you may have a sense that what you see is made up; when someone else that you trust uses it and pronounces the output in a way that suggests it is their own, you are left doing much more complex social math to figure out if your trust in this person or entity can hold. It gets exhausting, personally.


“Think of the children!”

When AI produces those meaningful advances in those fields, great, we can start having meaningful discussions about them. The greatest medical advancement of the 21st century is likely mRNA, or maybe GLP-1 for some. Neither were LLM assisted in any meaningful way as far as I know (they predate ChatGPT, perhaps more primitive models were involved in ways I’m not familiar with). Until those advances come, this argument is fanfic.

Plus, in the most morbid way possible: who gives a shit about living longer if they are stripped of their career, are inundated with slop at every angle, and can’t trust any information. These are real problems that AI has already created, unlike the fanfic of ridding cancer.


I have no advice to offer, I only wish you good luck. I am still lucky enough to be employed, but when this whole parade ends, I have no idea what comes next - my only skill is programming and related knowledge work. I think the only path forward is to try to jump ship to another white or blue collar industry…


I thought along those lines as well. The only thing I could come up with that would be semi-viable was medical school, and I"m not sure I'd survive residency. I definitely would never be able to pay back the debt, if I had to take any.


Have you considered just… writing code? Like we used to in the good old days? If the tool drives you to that point of frustration, maybe it’s time to give the tool a break.


A lot of folks aren't "allowed" to write code anymore.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: