There's a lot of "girl games" in the industry. Have you heard of LADS [1]? The studio makes plenty of girl games with the Nikki franchise. There's also Stardew Valley and Disney Dreamlight Valley. It feels like a lot of people just overlook these games.
I know what I'm trying to say, so I can sanity check the output. You can't, unless you listen to the monologue.
That's why I disagree with people that say "just give me whatever you gave the LLM." That's only useful if you, the writer of the prompt, have no intention of looking at the LLM output before sending it.
I haven't thought about it this way but I have been feeling that something is off. I think you got it right. There is a HUGE difference between "I understand the concept" and "I can write down the concept on paper".
Everyone fools themselves into thinking that they understand but the illusion immediately falls apart when they try to write it down. The problem with LLM is that it is actually able to produce something that "works". But more often that not, what it produces is usually beyond what the author actually understand.
Arguably, one could ask "Why does it matter?" If there are enough tests and monitoring to capture the behavior of the program, who cares how it is implemented? To me this is extremely disappointing. I have always wanted to write software that lasts for a century but if software becomes a commodity, I see software quality mattering less and less.
If something is broken, just ask the LLM to patch it. Unlike a human, there is no limit to this. The LLM will happily fix that 50 years old Fortran code that no one understand. There is a lot less pressure to rethink at the fundamental principles.
Clearly India history has a lot to say about mathematics but I don't think they get enough attention. Or am I just ignorant and living in my own bubble? Indian philosophy is also very intriguing.
Regarding attention, anything that does not draw directly from the Greek mainline, does not get much attention in the mainstream.
Lot of interesting mathematics was done by Indians, Persians, Arabs, Mayans.
Indian mathematics has an additional layer of obscurity. Very little was written down and when it was it was written down in picturesque and poetic verses (as a mnemonic device) that used a lot of symbolism and imagery. For the number one they will mention the Sun, for two the moon and so on, these mappings would also change from work to work, chapter to chapter. So one needs a lot of context to understand what a document is saying.
For example the source of the approximation above is described as follows (literal translation) [1]
The degree of the arc, subtracted from the total degrees of half a circle, multiplied by the remainder from that [subtraction], are put down twice. [In one place] they are subtracted from sky-cloud-arrow-sky-ocean [40500]; [in] the second place,
[divided] by one-fourth of [that] remainder [and] multiplied by the final result
[i.e., the trigonometric radius].
There's more to open source than just the code or output, it is also the community. There's apparenticeship, sharing of knowledge, sense of comradery, supporting each other, etc.
My day job uses a lot of open source libraries and projects, and do you know what we do when we fix things? We fork internally and don't upstream any patches.
Do you not see a loss here?
With LLMs, there's even LESS reason to keep up with upstream. We would probably just ask LLM to keep up with the changes commit by commit.
> There's more to open source than just the code or output, it is also the community. There's apparenticeship, sharing of knowledge, sense of comradery, supporting each other, etc.
No there is not. That’s what you impose on it. My code is open, free, and unencumbered. If I don’t want you using it you don’t see it at all. The licenses are there to make people happy.
I think your idealized list of attributes of “open source” is admirable. However, the apprenticeship, comradery, and support are a specific and often sought out feature of some development ‘communities’ for specific software. I’d also say that the ‘loss’ when fixes, updates, optimizations of open source software is not up-streamed is real, but this has very little to do with adopting or promoting the externalities (no matter how laudable) you want to see in certain software’s development.
I personally don’t care about the community, its composition, or its internal structure for a lot of software I use. Even when I’m compiling from source and customizing smaller applications for personal efficiency, I’m not usually interested in being a part of some distributed community centered on that software. Some times I am engaged in the community and appreciate it and the work required to maintain that community. But in either case, the software is “open source”.
That's all great, but to me the primary point is rms' original grievance with that printer driver. If the source is open, anyone can improve it. Multiple anyones can improve it! They can even collaborate on message boards and make a nice community, but this is certainly not a requirement.
The biggest takeaway for me from LLMs is that the implementation details no longer. If you have a sufficiently detailed tests and requirements, there is going to be a robot that will roll the dice until it fits the tests and requirements.
> Did people only talk about themselves? It is probably a rare trait when someone legitimately cares about other peoples inane daily lives.
I love this honestly. I talked to people that insurance that talks about their customer, retired prostitute that have reached financial freedom, NEETs, right wingers, and many other curious people. The reality is that most people are sane, and with a little bit of compassion and empathy, it is possible to "see how they get there".
I suppose these extremes are only available online because people won't open these up in physical meetings.
Rust is just a tool. A decent tool that I think can be made better (by removing stuff and stop adding more stuff to the surface syntax). So I am down to criticize Rust.
However, I also don't understand how people don't see the usefulness of what Rust put to the mainstream: algebraic data types, sum types, traits, etc.
I also get super annoyed when people think Rust is only chosen for "safety". Says frustrating things like "so I can just use unsafe", because no you don't and if you do I would reject your changes immediately.
Honestly, in general, I am just annoyed when people don't use the right tool for the right job. And attempts to fix the tool with more bespoke stuff on top it.
Yes. To me personally, Rust and both its restrictions and features (ie no OOP and prevalence of sum types and hence other goodies) makes approaching the implementation of big problems differently; eventually the experience with Rust also changes (to some extent) the way you write and structure the code in other languages. One might argue that Rust is not unique here and this would also apply to languages like ocaml etc - sure, perhaps; but I can't write in any of those languages at work on daily basis since they don't fit performance-wise or for many other reasons.
> Says frustrating things like "so I can just use unsafe", because no you don't and if you do I would reject your changes immediately.
This is the kind of hostility (which is frankly toxic) that’s become associated with parts of the Rust community, and has fairly or not, driven away many talented people over time.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_and_Deepspace