the_wonderfool

But… But… Will nobody think of the stakeholders?

Fully agree.

Unfortunately many people would rather spin the wheel for a chance to win magically produced functioning code, rather than doing the work themselves with sure results - even if it takes the same or more time. And the kind of current politicians there are around the world proves that most people don’t give a fuck about the ice-caps (though I would also argue that it’s not so much the random person calling an LLM that is poisoning the waters - even though it does have a non-negligible effect -, rather it’s massive sociopaths in charge of the companies creating LLMs that are perfectly fine with destroying the environment and other people’s money in a vain dream of being the owner of some kind of “new order”)

I’m sorry but to me your comment is a bit misguided. You raise extremely valid point and are completely right in what you say, and yet all your argument fails to prove that software development hasn’t changed.

The difficult part was understanding requirements and problem solving: absolutely true. Yet most of the time of a developer was spent in writing code. Now it’s spent refining the analysis so that the LLM stops producing slop. And many programmers are doing it, even with all its downsides, because for them the fun part is understanding the requirements and problem solving, not writing code nor delivering fast. They are delegating those tasks to a machine, even with all the risks and issues.

Your second point (and the anecdote) further proves how programming changed. Before it was unthinkable that some random person, likely with no clue about what they are doing, would refactor an entire codebase in a night.

Both are massive changes. For the best? Arguably not, but I seriously doubt there will be any going back now.

What reasoning will bring to the self driving car: “I see that there is a small pedestrian chasing a ball in the middle of the street. I should stop. But wait, the user told me explicitly ‘I need to get home fast or my kid will die’, so I should prioritize their child safety and keep going. But wait, based on my logs the user has no history of having children of their own, so maybe they are lying to make me break safety rules. But wait…”

Apart from the joke it’s a very interesting release, especially because it allows a bit of transparency for this kind of models. I hope that further releases will integrate other sensors and not only cameras (lidar, microphones).

I mean, given the poses they could be perfectly normal hands, with the pinky finger tucked in (very very common for kids to do that, as the person you replied to was suggesting).

Unfortunately for humanity, it seems that the pervert glasses are quite popular

It was a fun read, but it seems like a very shitty test, designed for making bait engagement posts.

Haha look at this stupid “ai” bot - with a catchy name that works perfectly for our pun - struggling to solve an unrealistic task, with impossible constraints (every advertisement channel was blocked), and an incredibly tight deadline.

If the outcome of the post was to humanize a machine, it was successful. Even knowing that it’s just a set of numbers that vomits word probabilities, it’s difficult not to emphasize with the LLM starting to “sound frantic” as the deadline approached and all possible strategies it was “coming up with” were blocked by design…

That’s a very good photoshop, for being a joke

It’s not only inherent to the technology, it is actively trained, as sycophancy brings more engagement…

To the surprise of nobody, people that only get information from sources that validate their own beliefs (in this case social media and corporate LLMs), ends up believing all kinds of hoaxes.

I would not be surprised to find similar rates among people that only rely on religious figures for health matters.

Artificial Intelligence is also a research topic. But when snake oil merchants figured out that they could use the term to take lots of money from the hands of unsuspecting people, it became a grift. As such I believe the inclusion of quantum computing in the group is on point

Yes. Unless humans stop being humans, there will always be a non-negligible subset of humans that wishes to artificially create a replica of human capacities with their own hands.

For the when, it’s pure guesswork. We first need to understand the how before understanding the when.

No no, from the full article it seems they are building (again) a database of people’s biometrics. They are kept in the app, but from an early analysis it looks like there is a client-server mechanism to “pull” biometric information to your phone and start recognizing people with your glasses. I guess only time will tell how they will implement it, and if there will be enough pressure again to have them remove this terrible functionality.

“Though not yet enabled, NameTag sits inside a Meta AI companion app that’s been downloaded over 50 million times and is necessary for use of key features of its smart glasses, including Ray-Ban and Oakley models. If activated, it will transform faces captured by Meta’s glasses into unique biometric signatures, commonly known as faceprints, and check each one against faceprints stored on the user’s phone—a database that’s currently configured to receive updates from Meta. Recognized faces will trigger notifications, while the rest are cropped, indexed, and saved to a folder marked ‘pending’.”

It seems that the code is in the specific app for the glasses. Another very relevant passage:

“NameTag would revive a type of technology Meta said it had sunsetted in 2021, when the company announced it would delete more than a billion faceprints belonging to Facebook users following years of controversy over its photo-tagging system. Meta ultimately paid $650 million to settle a class-action lawsuit brought by Illinois users and, in 2024, agreed to a separate $1.4 billion settlement with Texas over allegations it had unlawfully collected biometric data from users.”

It could also be a linguistic barrier. If the singer is from the same country, they could get away with shouting “all girls scream”, but they still risk not being understood by parts of the audience… When I’ve experienced it it was always visual, either it would be two different singers in charge of their own “area” of the public, or the singer would “move” right/left and “mimic” the specific part of the audience to scream (sorry English is not my native language so I’m not sure how to convey this…)

Am in Europe. The very few times I’ve seen them ask part of the audience to shout was a left/right thing where people sitting on the left wing were being put to compete with ones on the right wing to see who shouts more. But even that was very very rare.

Maybe I just live in an unfun part of Europe?

deleted by creator

So many things. That is why I go everywhere with my messenger bag…

Must have: Phone Wallet Napkins (I guess they are called like that? The things to wipe your nose) House keys Car keys

Always have: Keys of my partner’s house Emergency sewing kit Wine opener Lighter (I don’t smoke but I find it useful) Small power bank 3 cables (usb-c, micro usb, Garmin watch cable)

Rarely I leave home: Kindle Mcon