That would be possible if you had just the spec, but after sometime most of the code will not have been generated through the original spec, but through lots of back and forth for adding features and big fixing. No way to run all that again.
Not that old big non-AI software doesn't have similar maintainability issues (I keep posting this example, but I don't actually want to callthat company out specifically, the problem is widespread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18442941).
That's why I'm reluctant to complain about the AI code issues too much. The problem of how software is written, on the higher level, the teams, the decisions, the rotating programmers, may be bigger than that of any particular technology or person actually writing the code.
I remember a company where I looked at a contractor job, they wanted me to fix a lot of code they had received from their Eastern European programmers. They complained about them a lot in our meeting. However, after hearing them out I was convinced the problem was not the people generating the code, but the ones above them who failed to provide them with accurate specs and clear guidance, and got surprised at the very end that it did not work as expected.
Similar with AI. It may be hard to disentangle what is project management, what is actually the fault of the AI. I found that you can live with pockets of suboptimal but mostly working code well enough, even adding features and fixing bugs easily, if the overall architecture is solid, and components are well isolated.
That is why I don't worry too much about the complaints here about bad error checks and other small stuff. Even if it is bad, you will have lots of such issues in typical large corporate projects, even with competent people. That's because programmers keep changing, management focuses on features over anything else (usually customers, internal or external, don't pay for code reorg, only for new features). The layers above the low level code are more important in deciding if the project is and remains viable.
From what the commenters say, it seems to me the problem starts much higher than the Claude code, so it is hard to say how much at fault AI generated code actually is IMHO. Whether you have inexperienced juniors or an AI producing code, you need solid project lead and architecture layers above the lines of code first of all.
You will have to translate this German language article, but this is NOT Trump. It is about the tech billionaires supporting this quest, and why they want it.
I doubt Trump would have ever even thought of Greenland on his own. I think was told about it, and the narrative planted in his head deliberately.
This focus on "Trump" in Internet comments and media irks me to no end. Trump is not a failure and not the wrong person in the job - he is ideal for those behind him. The money does not like public attention.
This gets me thinking that the US would benefit so much from trading its income tax for an aggressive estate tax. The US would have far greater tax revenue, the standard of living would dramatically increase for the average citizen, and idiots like these two would be powerless. Let influence be reserved for those who have built it.
No, the alternative would be that they would have build something tat would much better fit that purpose. You are trying to fit a square peg through a round hole here. The article mentions why all the common ideas don't make sense.
The theories proposed here are merely examples of human brains ability to come up with a fantastic story for anything in the absence of data. Ex falso quodlibet - from zero follows everything, if you have nothing you can just say anything you want, and it will "explain" your non-existing data perfectly /s
The extremely narrow passages, only one exit, bad air circulation, there is nothing that hints towards this being used for hiding, quite the opposite.
> And while three brave explorers in the 21st century once spent 48 hours in an erdstall, crawling to new sections whenever oxygen became scarce, it seems unlikely that they would have been constructed as hiding places, even temporary ones
If/since bias is everywhere and implicit because a person is that person and their own experiences, why point it out here so explicitly????
You do not point that out every. Single. Time. somebody argues even though it is true, or do you? Because that is just too shallow, that is the basis, nothing can be below that, so there is no point in pointing to the ground every time. So when you do point it out, it is YOU who has an agenda.
No, just when Europeans (like yourself) need a reminder that they're not exceptional in their "level headedness" and "soberness", and in fact are anti-exceptional when it comes to real world outcomes like GDP.
For the sake of quality of discussion, you should least least attempt to write something about the actual study, instead of basing your argument completely on superficial information outside said study.
If you add that information, if you really think it adds any value, after discussing what's actually in the study the comment would be sooo much better.
What does elasticity matter if you no longer make a profit?
Isn't the only thing that could matter - apart from strategic considerations of financing a loss for a time - if the margins are big enough? Who wants to pay for people to take their products below the full cost of making them, apart from some investor-financed hype startups?
> Isn't the only thing that could matter ... if the margins are big enough
2) No, the standard price elasticity of demand curve does not directly include profits. It primarily models the relationship between price and quantity demanded.
No, the standard price elasticity of demand curve does not directly include profits. It primarily models the relationship between price and quantity demanded.
Supply curve??? The OP wrote "This is confirming demand is more inelastic"
> Good science fiction where the aliens are very alien are hard to come by.
Apart from "Solaris", which many probably know because there's been a reasonably well-known movie, I recommend "Fiasco" by the same author, Good science fiction where the aliens are very alien are hard to come by Stanisław Lem. Spoiler: It does not end well. The aliens are too alien, and the humans do what humans often do.
Roadside Picnic I believe would also fall into this category. Though the aliens are just theoretical in the book and the characters deal with what is speculated to be the aftermath of an alien visit.
> Roadside Picnic I believe would also fall into this category. Though the aliens are just theoretical in the book and the characters deal with what is speculated to be the aftermath of an alien visit.
Another sci-fi classic sorta made into a movie (Stalker).
In Shroud, Tchaikovsky does very alien (“real” aliens, not “uplifts”) very well. Anthropocentrically, it does not “end well.” Literarily, it vies for my favorite SciFi read of ‘25. Technically, I read “There Is No Antimemetics Division” last year, but I’d already kind of read it... or at least I think I thought I had.
Humans are trained on the real world. With real world sensors and the ability to act on their world. A baby starts with training hearing, touching (lots of that), smelling, tasting, etc. Abstract stuff comes waaayyyyy later.
LLMs are trained on our intercepted communication - and even then only the formal part that uses words.
When a human forms sentences it is from a deep model of the real world. Okay, people are also capable of talking about things they don't actually know, they have only read about, in which case they have a superficial understanding and unwarranted confidence similar to AI...
All true, but note I didn't make any claims on internal mechanics of LLMs here - only on the observable, external ones, and the nature of the training process.
Do consider however that even the "formal part that uses words" of human communication, i.e. language, is strongly correlated with our experience of the real world. Things people write aren't arbitrary. Languages aren't arbitrary. The words we use, their structure, similarities across languages and topics, turns of phrases, the things we say and the things we don't say, even the greatest lies, they all carry information about the world we live in. It's not unreasonable to expect the training process as broad and intense as with LLMs to pick up on that.
I said nothing about internals earlier, but I'll say now: LLMs do actually form a "deep mofel of the real world", at least in terms of concepts and abstractions. That has already been empirically demonstrated ~2 years ago, there's e.g. research done by Anthropic where they literally find distinct concepts within the neural network, observe their relationships, and even suppress and amplify them on demand. So that ship has already sailed, it's surprising to see people still think LLMs don't do concepts or don't have internal world models.
Regardless of the truthiness of that statement, that sentence at most makes him say something wrong. How on earth is that sentence making him a "PoS"??? At worst, he sees a tragic binary option where others see better and more. Some of his other public statements, sure, but this one?
It's typical right wing "boys will be boys" mentality. Under no circumstance should boys or men be held accountable for their actions. The only options for boys with issues is to let them kill people or kill them. It's simply not possible the parents are doing something wrong or that we hold young men accountable. It contributes to how extremely fragile a scary percentage of young men are these days. Everything must revolve around them or violence is expected and understood. It's all this and much more from him.
You are absolutely missing the point of what he is saying. Once your kid gets to a certain age, you are no longer able to control them. Regardless of the reason (nature vs nurture), if your kid starts going down a bad path, you the parent are unable to rein them in.
The context was that he watched his stepson get into drugs, and was unable to force him into rehab. If the son left, the parents could not coerce him into staying.
So if you are in that position, and your kid gets into drugs, and there is nothing you can do about it, what would you do as a good parent?
Now apply the same thing to if you think your kid is becoming a danger to others.
His full statement was that if we collectively reject the premise of restricting someone's (the child in question) bodily autonomy (by committing them), the argument is the only two options that remain are to watch helplessly or kill your kid. Obviously he is not seriously advocating the latter any more than Jonathan Swift was truly advocating for eating them.
> It's typical right wing "boys will be boys" mentality.
What on earth??? There is not a trace in that statement that fist that description! Stop making stuff up that is not there. The text is right in front of you, no need to invent words never said or written.
> Under no circumstance should boys or men be held accountable for their actions.
Even more insane. None of that is anywhere in that sentence, not even with an "interpretation".
In threads like these, some people are reacting to the shadows found in their own mind.
Why don't you just stick to the mentioned statement? "Adams opined that society leaves parents of troubled teenage boys with only two options: to either watch people die or murder their own son." Nothing you said can be found in there. That is all something you added ("interpreted" does not quite fit it when you hallucinate something new entirely into existence).
I did. You just didn't like the correct response of me pointing out his typical right-wing views on men. I'm not interpreting anything. That's what is views are.
Not that old big non-AI software doesn't have similar maintainability issues (I keep posting this example, but I don't actually want to callthat company out specifically, the problem is widespread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18442941).
That's why I'm reluctant to complain about the AI code issues too much. The problem of how software is written, on the higher level, the teams, the decisions, the rotating programmers, may be bigger than that of any particular technology or person actually writing the code.
I remember a company where I looked at a contractor job, they wanted me to fix a lot of code they had received from their Eastern European programmers. They complained about them a lot in our meeting. However, after hearing them out I was convinced the problem was not the people generating the code, but the ones above them who failed to provide them with accurate specs and clear guidance, and got surprised at the very end that it did not work as expected.
Similar with AI. It may be hard to disentangle what is project management, what is actually the fault of the AI. I found that you can live with pockets of suboptimal but mostly working code well enough, even adding features and fixing bugs easily, if the overall architecture is solid, and components are well isolated.
That is why I don't worry too much about the complaints here about bad error checks and other small stuff. Even if it is bad, you will have lots of such issues in typical large corporate projects, even with competent people. That's because programmers keep changing, management focuses on features over anything else (usually customers, internal or external, don't pay for code reorg, only for new features). The layers above the low level code are more important in deciding if the project is and remains viable.
From what the commenters say, it seems to me the problem starts much higher than the Claude code, so it is hard to say how much at fault AI generated code actually is IMHO. Whether you have inexperienced juniors or an AI producing code, you need solid project lead and architecture layers above the lines of code first of all.
reply