I think everyone who believes that they can personally resist the detrimental psychological effects of exposure to LLMs by "remaining aware" or "being careful", because they have cultivated an understanding of how language models work, is falling into precisely the same fallacy as people who think they can't be conned or that marketing doesn't work on them.
Don't kid yourself. If you use this junk, it's making you dumber and damaging your critical thinking skills, full-stop. This is delegation of core competency. You may feel smarter, or that you're learning faster, of that you're more productive, but to people who aren't addicted to LLMs it sounds exactly like gamblers insisting they have a foolproof system for slots, or alcoholics insisting that a few beers make them a better driver. Nobody outside the bubble is impressed with the results.
I fully agree that it’s close to impossible to not eventually fall into the trap of overrelying on them. However, it’s also true that I was able to do things with them that I would never have done otherwise for a lack of time or skill (all sorts of small personal apps, tools, and scripts for my hobbies). Maybe it’s a bit similar to only reading the comment section in a newspaper instead of the news? They will introduce you to new perspectives but if you stop reading the underlying news you’ll harm your own critical thinking? So it’s maybe a bit more grey than black & white?
> If you use this junk, it's making you dumber and damaging your critical thinking skills, full-stop.
Arguably I've been using my critical thinking skills more now that I have a smooth talking, but ultimately not actually intelligent companion.
Every time I put undue trust in it, I regret it, so I got used to veryfing what it outputs via documentation and sometimes even library code.
That being said worst part of this mess is that my usual sources of knowledge like search engines or developer forums dried up, as everyone else is also using LLMs.
I think this is too broad. If, for example, I get Claude to set up a fine tuning pipeline for rf-detr and it one shots it for me, what have I lost? A learning opportunity to understand the details of how to go about this process, sure. But you could argue the same about relying on PyTorch. Ultimately we all have an overarching goal when engaged in these projects and the learning opportunity might be happening at an entirely different level than worrying about the nuts and bolts of how you build component A of your larger project.
> Don't kid yourself. If you use this junk, it's making you dumber and damaging your critical thinking skills, full-stop. This is delegation of core competency.
This is a good way to frame the problem. Consider the offshoring (delegation) of American manufacturing to China, followed by the realization decades later that the US has forgotten how to actually make things and the subsequent frenzied attempt to remember.
I expect the timelines and second-order (third-order...) effects to play out on a similar decadal scale - long after everybody has realized their profits and the western brain has atrophied into slop.
LLM enthusiasts will always point to whatever scraps of personal value they've extracted from their use of genai as a rationale for their indispensability. Arguing from personal utility rings hollow for anyone who takes the externalities of these "tools" seriously: their erasure of the authorship of their training corpus, their erosion of social contracts, their putrefaction of the commons with endless waves of slop, etc. I'm glad FreeBSD has managed to hold the line against this sort of shortsighted ends-justify-means thinking, and I hope they don't soften their stance against slop in the future.
Agreed, but for some reason the majority of folks don't care about these externalities at all.
I see the externalities and the harm they are and may cause, and at the same time I find it increasingly difficult to avoid using LLMs as there is personal value to be extracted. Further, so many others are using LLMs to pump their productivity numbers (reality may differ and time will tell) its hard to keep up without using LLMs.
Moss looks much more general and powerful, but Decker has a similar mechanism for custom brush behavior; here's an interactive tutorial with a variety of examples, for comparison: http://beyondloom.com/decker/brushes.html
I agree. I wrote an essay which contrasts the "visualbasic-like" vision that most visual app-builder tools take with the pliable, user-modifiable stack-of-cards approach in HyperCard: https://beyondloom.com/blog/sketchpad.html
I was taught that it was more a memory device for recognizing major depressive disorder as a state of sadness and low energy. The treatment, I presume was still SSRIs first line.
There are a variety of open-source 3d-printable adapters to mount glasses within full-face respirators. I use a version of this design with my 3M 6000-series and an old pair of lenses:
> Executes one line of script per frame (~60 lines/sec).
Makes the "runs at 60FPS" aspect of the engine feel a lot less relevant. At this speed, anything more complex than Pong would be a struggle. Even a CHIP-8 interpreter is usually expected handle a dozen or so comparably expressive instructions per frame.
Which is why I love this. Extreme constraints. Takes a lot of creativity to make something interesting, without feeling overwhelmed with possibility. I'm considering making tiny arthouse game projects with this.
I agree. It seems like interpreting one instruction per frame is the developer's way to guarantee real-time performance. I don't want to discourage the developer from experimenting with this design. What I think they should do is determine the most instructions they can interpret each frame.
I stand by a policy that if a feature in one of my projects can only be implemented in Chrome, it's better not to add the feature at all; the same is true for features which would be exclusive to Firefox. Giving users of a specific browser a superior experience encourages a dangerous browser monoculture.
Not writing the feature makes sense, but pushing Firefox and Safari to add support would be pro-social if you're up for it. The most common reason for browsers not to add support is something like "this can be done in other ways, and it has maintainability/security/bloat downsides". Running into a feature you can't build is evidence on the "this can be done in other ways" question (but of course the other downsides could still be big enough that it's not worth doing).
There are many useful things that can only be implemented for Chromium: things like the filesystem API mentioned in this post, the USB devices API used to implement various microcontroller flashing tools, etc. Users can have multiple browsers installed, and I often use Chromium as essentially a sandboxed program runtime.
SOME users can have multiple browsers installed. Some can absolutely not. In fact, 1.6 billion users can only have one installed and it's not Chrome or Chromium based.
Assuming you're talking about iOS: and their OS won't let them install your app to manage files or flash microcontrollers anyway. It's not your problem when they choose an actively hostile platform.
Firefox is only a few percent market share. You are hiring your users for not improving their user experience because it's not compatible with one of the a web browsers on a few percent of people's computers.
Chrome add these features because they are responding to the demands of web developers. It's not web developers fault if firefox can't or refuses to provide apis that are being asked for.
Mozilla could ask Claude to implement the filesystem api today and ship it to everyone tomorrow if they wanted to. They are holding their own browser back, don't let them also hold your website back. In regards to browser monoculture there are many browsers built on top of the open source Blink that are not controlled by Google such as Edge, Brave, and Opera just to name a few of the many.
Don't kid yourself. If you use this junk, it's making you dumber and damaging your critical thinking skills, full-stop. This is delegation of core competency. You may feel smarter, or that you're learning faster, of that you're more productive, but to people who aren't addicted to LLMs it sounds exactly like gamblers insisting they have a foolproof system for slots, or alcoholics insisting that a few beers make them a better driver. Nobody outside the bubble is impressed with the results.
reply