jj4211

It's still consistent with my experience, but in certain contexts, can be corrected if the output can be processed in some context that can auto detect wrong output. For example if you have a unit test to pass, then it can be wrong several times but doesn't matter because it auto runs and gets directed to try again.

In contexts without the possibility to objectively measure correctness, it is still pretty bad.

Think there is a much higher immediate risk for new developers trying to get going in the market. So much management right now is pretty comfortable that new programmers with zero real world experience offers nothing the GenAI can't do under the supervision of a senior developer.

Problem is historically new developers weren't trusted to make any decisions if more senior employees were aware of such scenarios, so a new developer was pretty much verbatim implement guidance from more senior teams just deal with obvious rote tedium associated with getting it to code. Also the senior dev will have to fix all your screw ups when you inevitably botch it a few times. Awfully similar to the role GenAI can do now. So has to be some cultural shift to figure out how onboarding new generation developers looks.

Note I could be wrong about the middle paragraph, it's what the larger organization thinks, but I kind of got going by being 'senior' for lack of a company having options and moved from there. Similarly, I've never had success onboarding a junior that wouldn't take independent ownership. I'd get too frustrated at lack of growth and having to correct the same mistakes and be painfully specific, much like I do with GenAI. A new college hire that had his own vision and ability to take vague guidance and implement his vision, that I could work with, but it has happened once in a great while.

Of course the good human will hopefully comes to not knowing.

GenAI has an unfortunate tendency to output consistent sounding stuff with high apparent confidence that means nothing at all. Which still can be useful in a context where the "correctness" can be objectively validated like certain software development tasks, but terrible for anything where the output cannot be automatically verified. Have to decide if it helps you research more concretely, the output doesn't actually matter if it is wrong

I like buttons on top of the touchpads, but that really only happens when they feel like they are doing buttons for a trackpoint instead of from the pad.

So still buttons, just not on the very bottom edge.

But even then, they keep deciding the touchpad is good enough to be buttons for the trackpoint, because I suppose people demand as large a trackpad as possible.

At least on smartphones there's some actual indications where it expects the zone to be. The touchpads with zero markings or boundaries to feel where the zones intended to be 'middle click' or 'right click' is just an absolute rough guess...

You could just upgrade, I assume RAM is cheap, haven't looked in a while, just let me look up memory prices real quick...

just tell me what’s wrong so I can improve further applications

Generally, they are terrified of giving more feedback than absolutely necessary. They might incur an accusation of unfair hiring practices. Similar story on 'references', confirm only employment dates, never provide a qualitative assessment, good or bad.

He is a scam artist, but this specific argument in the broader reality doesn't really stick. The argument is that no one ever sells something that yields value to anyone else, which is obviously off.

It works better if you highlight that Tesla is less like those companies. They are demonstrably big on vertical integration, including the ride shares, so for them, it is out of character, but as a generic business strategy, it's perfectly routine.

Broadly, you have a point. However with Tesla Musk has been pretty consistent that they would be directly doing it and they have the Tesla app managing the rides.

Their strategy has been all in one, they make the cars, they own the chargers, and they don't really partner with anyone in any significant way.

While it does happen that companies end up partnering and competing at the same time, it's relatively less likely. So for Tesla it is extra strange to be pitching being a supplier for other autonomous taxis while simultaneously being in the market.

So yeah, generally it is a poor argument, but in the context of Tesla, it is at least a bit out of character for them.

Correction that they are also farming lumber, but the cycle is just much much longer.

I know a family that does it as one of a few things they do. Their timber land is relatively small so they have it harvested all at once. Every couple of decades a company pays them a healthy sum to get the timber and then nothing is done with the land for the next couple of decades while trees grow. In addition to the cash payment, they get to own the land tax free as it counts for agricultural exemptions.

Others in the thread are deeper into it and speak of staggered logging so there is annual logging off like 1/25th of the trees at a time.

Not to say there isn't cutting of totally natural forest, but there is farming too.

Of course in that scenario it may be private information, but given you are trying to file it, inherently you at least are in the realm of sharing it.

I would imagine things like asking for legal advice on a crime committed, which could hilariously backfire when that chat transcript shows up in court.

Once they have that much care and thought, then they probably would have the thought of asking the art teacher or art students to do something vaguely meaningful.