it's not surprising that you've picked up some unsubstantiated protestant dogma disguised as economic theory, if you are hanging out on facebook neighborhood groups

smh, keyboard warriors with no background in tailoring deciding whether the emperor has clothes or not

Designing a system with deterministic behavior would require the developer to think. Human-Computer Interaction experts agree that a better policy is to "Don't Make Me Think" [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_Make_Me_Think

That book is talking about user interaction and application design, not development.

We absolutely should want developers to think.

As experiments like TFA become more common, the argument will shift to whether anybody should think about anything at all.

What argument? I see a business model here, not an argument.

I meant "the discourse", "the conversation we are all having", interpreting the experiment in TFA as an entry in that discourse.

This is such a massive misunderstanding of the book. Have you even read it? The developer needs to think so that the user doesn't have to...

My most charitable interpretation of the perceived misunderstanding is that the intent was to frame developers as "the user."

This project would be the developer tool used to produce interactive tools for end users.

More practically, it just redefines the developer's position; the developer and end-user are both "users". So the developer doesn't need to think AND the user doesn't need to think.

I interpreted it like "why don't we simply eat the orphans"? It kind of works but it's absurd, so it's funny. I didn't think about it too hard though, because I'm on a computer.

..is this an AI comment?

Azure outages: happens all the time, understandable, no way to prevent this

AWS outages: almost never happens, you should have been more prepared for when it does

The 50 year old executive using the software doesn’t know what an AWS is and hardly knows what Amazon does outside of selling junk.

If you say it’s Microsoft then it’s just unavoidable.

Is there a genuine use case for today's models, other than for identifying suckers? You can't even systematically apply an LLM to a list of text transformation tasks, because the ability to produce consistent results would make them less effective sycophants.

FLOP/s/$ is still increasing exponentially, even if the specific components don't match Moore's original phrasing.

Markets for electronics have momentum, and estimating that momentum is how chip producers plan for investment in manufacturing capacity, and how chip consumers plan for deprecation.

I stopped paying for Kagi because they added AI.

This concept doesn't require the Law of Excluded Middle that classical boolean values do.

Ah alright, since I don't know what that is I will attribute it to my own lack of knowledge then.

Basically, the Excluded Middle is for things neither True nor False.

Yeah okay I get it. The law basically states that 'not true' should be 'false' and vice versa.

I still don't get what's the use of this, or is this just a curiosity? It seems like the result is just a kind of ternary operator? Doesn't this still just compile to if(x.present) return x else y? Just with really obtuse syntax

If you are doing proofs then the law of the excluded middle creates paradoxes. "this statement is false" is a paradox with the law but isn't without the law. In a programming language not used for proofs? Then yeah it is just for fun.

OmniGraffle user spotted

Circular reasoning can be used to "prove" anything, so it's not helpful as a basis for policy making.