I never understood why bitcoin is winning popularity/pricing over ie. ethereum - which doesn't burn energy anymore and you can actually do programming on it, not just moving money from a to b.
Because it's based on narratives. Bitcoin has the strong narrative and the "network effect". Because bitoin keeps surviving, the narrative reinforces itself. At this point surely most people know, even if they're unwilling to admit or fooling themselves, the utility value is basically dead.
The utility value is now a pure gamble that a person tomorrow will pay me more than I paid for it today, thinking that a person in the future will pay them more than they paid. And that can be a powerful enough narrative to keep it going.
But if bitcoin disappeared today, 99.99999% of the world wouldn't even notice, that is how little of a problem it solves.
Anyway, the point is, imagine the scenario if ethereum overtook bitcoin in value. What will this actually do to the ecosystem? In my view, it would be catastrophic to the value of all coins, because it suddenly destroys the narrative of a "store of value" (the last lingering narrative). Any other coin could just overtake ethereum, and out of all the thousands of coins, which one? At that point, I think the whole thing comes down.
One interpretation of this comment, if viewed from an adversarial angle, is that comments like this, although perhaps not this comment specifically, are designed to dissuade people from buying crypto days before a bull-run starts.
I would benefit enormously from people buying crypto to keep the price going up. I've owned bitcoin for 9 years. I bought it when I realised that the narrative was strong enough to overcome any technical arguments and I wanted to profit from that. One day I'm assuming it help me retire.
One theory backed with proprietary data is that it's because bitcoin was created by the US government and money printed by the Fed goes in bitcoin so the government will one day pay its projected $113T of debt by dumping on everyone.
Just because they are not leading current sprint of maximizing transformers doesn't mean they're not doing anything.
It's not impossible that they asses it as local maximum / dead end and are evaluating/training something completely different - and if it'll work, it'll work big time.
Best explanation I've seen (and claims to be from a published but not public report on it), is that their 3 way consensus didn't smooth over repeated wildly wrong outputs correctly. Concestency problem strikes again.
I certainly hold those opinions still, because the models still have yet to prove they are anything worth a person's time. I don't bother posting that because there's no way an AI hype person and I are ever going to convince each other, so what's the point?
The skeptics haven't evaporated, they just aren't bothering to try to talk to you any more because they don't think there's value in it.
And whats with everything else regarding ML progress like image generation, 3d world generation etc.?
I vibe coded plenty of small things i haven't ever had the time for them. You don't have anything which you wanted to do and can fit in a single page html application? It can even use local storage etc.
This is why they don't talk to you anymore. The only comparison you can make to a flat earther is that you think they're wrong, and flat earthers are also wrong. It's just dumb invective, and people don't like getting empty insults. I prefer my insults full.
The earth is flat until you have evidence of the contrary. It's you who should provide that evidence. We had physics, navigation and then space shuttles that clearly showed the earth is not flat.
We are yet to have a fully vibe-coded piece of software that actually works. The blog post is actually great because LLMs are very good are regurgitating pieces of code that already exist on a single prompt. Now ask them to make a few changes and suddenly the genie is back in the bottle.
Something doesn't math out. You can't be both a genius and extremely dumb (retarded) at the same time. You can be, however, good at information retrieval and presenting it in a better way. That's what LLMs are and am not discounting the usefulness of that.
It’s good at quickly producing a lot of code which is most likely going to give interesting results, and it’s completely unaware of anything including why human might want to produce code.
The marketing bullshit that it’s a "thinking" and "hallucinating" is just bringing the intended confusion on the table.
They are great tools for many purpose. But a GPS is not a copilot, and an LLM is not going to replace coworkers where their humanity matters.
I mean is it really that interesting if it completely falls flat and permanently runs in unfulfilling circles around basically any mild complexity the problem introduces as you get further along solving it, making it really hard to not feel like you need to just do it yourself?
For one thing, it’s far more interesting than a rubber duck in many cases. Of course on that matter in the end it’s about framing the representation adequately and enter a fictional dialog.
Original post alone mentions multiple projects and links https://pine.town as no code directly written by the author.
From perspective of personally using it daily, seeing what my team is using it for it's quite shocking to still see those kind of comments, it's like we're living on different planets - again, gives flat earther like vibe.
We're living in such interesting times - you can talk to a computer and it works, in many cases at extraordinary level - yet you still see intellectually constipated opinions arguing against basic facts established years ago - incredible.
It has been interesting experience, like trolling but you actually believe what you're saying. I wonder how you arrived at it - is it fear, insecurity, ignorance, feelings of injustice or maybe something else? I wonder what bothers you about LLMs?
I think the stochastic part is true and useless. It can be applied to anyone or anything. Yes, the models give you probabilities, but any algorithm gives you probabilities (only zero or one for deterministic ones).
You can definitely view the human mind as a complex statistical model of the world.
Now, that being said, do I think they are as good as a skilled human on most things? No, I don't. My trust issues have increased after the GPT-5 presentation. The very first question was to showcase its "PhD-level" knowledge, and it gave a wrong answer. It just happened to be in a field I know enough about to notice, but most didn't.
So, while I think they can be considered as having some form of intelligence, I believe they have more limits than a lot of people seem to realise.
It is all those things. It consistently fails to make truly novel discoveries, everything it does is derived from something it trained on from somewhere.
No point in arguing about it though with true believers, they will never change their minds.
Exactly, instead of this mess, you could just give it something like .d.ts.
Easy to maintain, test etc. - like any other library/code.
You want structure? Just export * as Foo from '@foo/foo' and let it read .d.ts for '@foo/foo' if it needs to.
But wait, it's also good at writing code. Give it write access to it then.
Now it can talk to sql server, grpc, graphql, rest, jsonrpc over websocket, or whatever ie. your usb.
If it needs some tool, it can import or write it itself.
Next realisation may be that jupyter/pluto/mathematica/observable but more book-like ai<->human interaction platform works best for communication itself (too much raw text, I'd take you days to comprehend what it spit out in 5 minutes - better to have summary pictures, interactive charts, whatever).
With voice-to-text because poking at flat squares in all of this feels primitive.
For improved performance you can peer it with other sessions (within your team, or global/public) - surely others solved similar problems to yours where you can grab ready solutions.
It already has ablity to create tool that copies itself and can talk to a copy so it's fair to call this system "skynet".
reply