"Informally, from the point of view of algorithmic information theory, the information content of a string is equivalent to the length of the most-compressed possible self-contained representation of that string. A self-contained representation is essentially a program—in some fixed but otherwise irrelevant universal programming language—that, when run, outputs the original string."
Where it gets tricky is the "self-contained" bit. It's only true with the model weights as a code book, e.g. to allow the LLM to "know about" Slack.
"[T]here is an entire cohort of people who can think about specifying systems but lack the training to sdo so so using the current methods and see a lower barrier to entry in the natural language."
"Specifying" is the load-bearing term there. They are describing what they want to some degree, how how specifically?
That's what it was like when you started out, but did you eventually learn that code? Imagine constantly getting out back into square one on understanding a legacy code base you just inherited, forever. This is what it's be like with constant LLM-induced churn on code repositories.
because the incentive structure is broken. if my performance review rewards me for using AI more, im going to use AI more even when i shouldn't. engineers will rubber stamp AI suggestions to hit their metrics instead of actually reviewing the code. you cant optimize for quantity of AI usage and quality of output at the same time IMO
So, in the interest of 'curious discourse' how would you suggest I should have written my comment so that it would be more professional, less snarky and less hostile?
You see, the comment that I replied to made an assumption, that assumption is embedded in the word 'probably'. The person that wrote that presumes to know what I intend. I corrected that. Clarified it and moved on. If that seems hostile and snarky to you then I'm happy to be educated. For myself, I think the comment I replied to could have been phrased as a question rather than a statement.
Your comment strikes me as a bit snarky too by the way.
> I probably did not. Then I would have written that. They are fucking over the dead. They are clearly not communicating with the dead.
A less snarky and hostile version:
> I actually didn't! I specifically meant that they are fucking over the dead.
Pretty much the same content, and it makes you sound like you actually want to interact with other people. Even in your paragraph long explanation you do quite a few things that are just unnecessarily hostile. It's clearly just the way you talk, but it also doesn't mean you shouldn't work on improving it.
> For myself, I think the comment I replied to could have been phrased as a question rather than a statement.
As an outside observer: mynameisvlad is right, and even provided a better variation of your comment _which you requested_. To me this is an OK criticism, I'd like to see more of this on HN. Then you've thrown everythign in the trash, essentially, and started digging through their comment history. Their comment wasn't even under discussion. I'd like to see less of this on HN.
Turnabout is fair play, you should know that by now. You seem to have the idea up your bonnet that you are in a position to lecture, that sort of thing is best done from a position of maturity. Your incessant attacks are far more against the spirit of HN than anything that I've written in this thread.
Your criticism does not take into account anything beyond the first layer of what I've written and does not apply leeway for cultural or other differences, which you seem to want to flatten to 'whatever Vlad says' being the norm.
Your intolerance is the problem here, not my writing. I asked you because I wanted you to have a chance to clarify your view before criticizing you because that's only fair. It could well be that you had an actual reason besides having long toes.
I don't like to be lectured by those that have ethics issues themselves on ethics and I don't like to be lectured on the tone of my writing by those that have issues themselves with the tone of their own writing.
For someone who has been here for as long as you have I'd expect a more balanced view on the contributors to HN and a much better contribution:flagged comments ratio than you seem to rack up.
If you really want to improve the tone on HN by reducing hostility, snark, unprofessionalism and now personal attacks then I suggest you seek out a mirror. Your own behavior in this thread shows examples of all of those and you are neither a credit to yourself or your employer.
My guess is this is correct. To the extent coding with agents becomes dominant, the need for non-technical managers to coordinate large numbers of developers will decrease.
"Informally, from the point of view of algorithmic information theory, the information content of a string is equivalent to the length of the most-compressed possible self-contained representation of that string. A self-contained representation is essentially a program—in some fixed but otherwise irrelevant universal programming language—that, when run, outputs the original string."
Where it gets tricky is the "self-contained" bit. It's only true with the model weights as a code book, e.g. to allow the LLM to "know about" Slack.
reply