Claude does these things even though you have explicit instructions not to do them, this isn't a tool for you asking it to delete files.
Just today Claude decided to do a git restore on me, blowing away local changes, despite having strict instructions to do nothing with git except to use it to look at history and branches.
Why jump to the conclusion that the person is so incompetent with no evidence?
Because there's now a class of programmers who are very anti AI when it comes to coding because they think anybody who relies on it are degenerate vibe coders who have no idea what they are doing. You can see this in pretty much every single HN post w.r.t AI and coding.
The first one has four important phrases: “negative correlation,” “mediated by increased cognitive offloading,” “higher educational attainment was associated with better critical thinking skills, regardless of AI usage,” and “potential costs.”
The second paper has two: “students using GenAI tools score on average 6.71 (out of 100) points lower than non-users,” and “suggesting an effect whereby GenAI tool usage hinders learning.”
I ask you, sir, where exactly do you get “AI over-reliance will make us worse…because it’s true” from TWO studies that go out of their way to make it clear there is no causative link, only correlation, point out significant mediations of the effect, identify only potentiality, and also show only half a letter grade difference, which when you’re dealing with students could be down to all sorts of things. Not to mention we’re dealing with one preprint and some truly confounding study design.
If you don’t understand research methods, please stop presenting papers as if they are empirical authorities on truth.
I was just about to say the same thing. This is bad code/documentation. Single letter variable names is almost always wrong if it isn't i for an index or such (and even then, would typing 'idx' kill you?). And as parameters, so much worse. Don't make me guess how to call your function please.
You assume they were talking about a single product. at my job there is essentially endless amounts of small tasks. We have many products and clients we have many internal needs, but can't really justify the human capital. Like I might write 20 to 50 Python scripts in a week just to visualize the output of my code. Dead boring stuff like making yet another matplotlib plot, simple stats, etc. Sometimes some simple animations. there is no monstrosity being built, this is not evidence of tagging on features or whatever you think must be happening, it's just a lot of work that doesn't justify paying a bay area principal engineer salary to do in the face of a board that thinks the path to riches is laying off the people actually making things and turning the screws on the remaining people struggling to keep up with the workflow.
Work is finite, but there can be vastly more available than there are employees to do it for many reasons, not just my personal case.
I grew up in the 70s. The hand wringing then was calculators. No one was going to be able to do math anymore! And then wrist watches with calculators came out. Everyone is going to cheat on exams, oh no!
Everything turned out fine. Turns out you don't really need to be able to perform long division by hand. Sure, you should still understand the algorithm at some level, esp. if you work in STEM, but otherwise, not so much.
There were losses. I recall my AP physics professors was one of the old school types (retired from industry to teach). He could find the answer to essentially any problem to about 1-2 digits of precision in his head nearly instantly. Sometimes he'd have to reach for his slide rule for harder things or to get a few more digits. Ain't no one that can do that now (for reasonable values of "no one"). And, it is a loss, in that he could catch errors nearly instantly. Good skill to have. A better skill is to be able to set up a problem for finite element analysis, write kernels for operations, find an analytic solution using Mathematica (we don't need to do integrals by hand anymore for the mot part), unleash R to validate your statistics, and so on. The latter are more valuable than the former, and so we willingly pay the cost. Our ability to crank out integrals isn't what it was, but our ability to crank out better jet engines, efficient cars, computer vision models has exploded. Worth the trade off.
Recently watched an Alan Guth interview, and he made a throwaway comment, paraphrased: "I proved X in this book, well, Mathematica proved...". The point being that the proof was multiple pages per step, and while he could keep track of all the sub/superscripts and perform the Einstein sums on all the tensors correctly, why??? I'd rather he use his brain to think up new solutions to problems, not manipulate GR equations by hand.
I'm ignoring AGI/singularity type events, just opining about the current tooling.
Yah, the transition will be bumpy. But we will learn the skills we need for the new tools, and the old skills just won't matter as much. When they do, yah, it'll be a bit more painful, but so what, we gained so much efficiency we can afford the losses.
I'm not a physicist but every definition of dark matter that I read says it does not interact with electromagnetic radiation hence it is invisible, and rocks are not that dark matter (wiki. NASA, etc)
> ... every definition of dark matter that I read says it does not interact with electromagnetic radiation ...
Actually, dark matter does interact with electromagnetic radiation -- it can deflect it, as in the case of gravitational lensing. But dark matter doesn't either emit nor absorb electromagnetic radiation directly.
We only know about dark matter because of its gravitational effects.
They are much lighter than 1 million solar masses and we know a few of them, with a variety of ways to detect them, including companion stars orbiting around them and gravitational waves during mergers.
Black holes fit the definition of dark matter, as they neither emit nor absorb electromagnetic radiation, not in a way that could be detected anyways. This is the "MACHO" theory of dark matter, which is not the favorite, but it is still taken seriously. Stellar mass black holes have been ruled out, I think, but it doesn't mean dark matter can't be made of black holes. In fact, primordial black holes are a rather hot theory.
Blank holes aren't dark enough. Because of their accretion disks, they typically stand out from their environments. Also, unlike dark matter, black holes tend to give themselves away by the focal distribution of their masses.
> Black holes fit the definition of dark matter, as they neither emit nor absorb electromagnetic radiation, not in a way that could be detected anyways.
Actually, Hawking radiation explains how black holes eventually evaporate, and the smaller the BH, the higher the Hawking radiation "temperature." This radiation is manifest in observations, and along with the energy emitted by accretion disks, black holes are often very conspicuous.
> Stellar mass black holes have been ruled out ...
Wait, the largest black holes are many millions of times the mass of our sun. Or did you mean only ruled out as a candidate for dark matter?
Another argument against black holes as dark matter is that black holes tend to congregate near the center of galaxies, while by contrast dark matter notoriously distributes itself through the entire volume of a galaxy.
I emphasize these are just counterpoints, not refutations, and black holes might play a part in the dark matter issue.
So how do we know that these "dark matter objects" aren't actually just massive collections of normal matter that is dim enough and at such a far distance that it would appear (angular resolution-wise) to be invisible, but we can still detect the lensing?
Normal matter in the universe is mostly hydrogen, which should coalesce to form stars, which give off light. The lack of light compared to the estimated mass is precisely the paradox.
There are a few reasons. It would be visible when backlit. Gravitational lensing detection limits the size so it can't planets (MACHOs). The CMB shows that only sixth of matter interacts with other matter, the rest is only interacts gravitationally.
Even if distinct against the cosmic background, a cloud of matter should show absorption / emission spectra, and we are very good at capturing spectography from very distant and dim objects, and we've discovered elements (helium) and determined the composition of distant objects (including the atmsopheres of exoplanets) by this method.
Light shining through dark matter, if that dark interacts with electromagnetic radiation, would show absorption lines, and I suspect they'd be of compelling interest. My understanding is that there's no observational evidence that it does. Given that we now know precisely where a dark-matter candidate is I suspect that there will be attempts made to identify any possible spectrographic signature which would confirm (if absent) or refute (if present) current understandings of dark matter's nature.
Hire, then train them for a long period of time? That is an apprenticeship. It's what they do in the trades already. There aren't enough slots (union or not).
You need a diploma, a smattering of algebra, a driver's license, and the physical ability to do the work. Everything else you will be taught on the job, while being paid.
Or because their kid or dog is in the car. Or because they have difficulty walking. Or because they just want to decompress and scroll their phone or listen to the news for 10 minutes. Or they hate crowds. Or they are immune compromised and don't want to be mingling with a bunch of people around a counter. Or they have social anxiety. Or they have a cold and just don't feel like getting out of their car. Or they are expecting a call from the baby sitter. Or they are having a fight with their spouse which they don't want to export into the public.
IMO, drive throughs are great, I hate crowds and queues (yes, the car line is a queue, you know what I mean), and it is much kinder to my bad discs in my back (transitions from sitting/standing is just murder, steady state is much better). It would take a egregious queue to get me to go in in most cases. But sure, I'm lazy or just reaaally bad at math. edit: I also find it hard to hear in high volume rooms with lots of reflections (like an in-n-out), and yes, the drive through can have it's own sonic issues, but it is generally smoother for me.
Sorry, but I get tired when people take the most uncharitable read, especially when they blanket apply it to everyone.
I think your parent made a perfectly good point. Going into the store is a whole lot less pleasant than staying in my car and waiting a couple extra minutes in an environment I enjoy.
If I’m in a hurry then yes maybe I can shave a few minutes by going in, but if I’m getting fast food I probably don’t feel like interacting with people, and listening to crappy piped music while standing in an artificially lit corporate chain restaurant waiting for my order.
Just today Claude decided to do a git restore on me, blowing away local changes, despite having strict instructions to do nothing with git except to use it to look at history and branches.
Why jump to the conclusion that the person is so incompetent with no evidence?
reply