Do you dangerously allow permissions? I absolutely cannot use it until they ship an auto approver. As it is now I have it write one bash/python script to do everything it wants to, then I review that. Otherwise it is COMPLETELY unusable and it shocks me when I hear people are using it.
I've used Antigravity as my main coding agent on one of my biggest projects for about a year. It's been great for me. (and I use Claude, Codex, Grok and Muse for all the other projects)
Gemini Flash is a joke for coding. If you can get the same output as you can get with Sol/Astra I'm impressed. Not to mention that Antigravity is awful.
It is not a universal opinion at all that general coding ability has plateaued.
When I have a clean codebase it’s super powerful and faster than I am. Then I start to use it more, more sessions and longer tasks less checking in between.
It kind of works but later I’m in a deadlock where every change introduces new bugs or takes ages. This might be for a lot of reasons for example me going to fast, me losing mental model, me explaining it wrongly.
However when I then start checking the code it’s all spaghetti like frankly the spaghetti Astra produces I’ve never seen before. Processes that should be simple stretch over 11 files with weird wrappers and abstractions and I need a whole day to entangle it.
These are ai assisted user workflows that Im working on in this case.
I just have the feeling no matter what AI just always expands it. And expansions hinders agility and sometimes you need that.
This is incredible! It definitely is better than Suno/Udio and you have quite a lot of creative control over each aspect - plus being able to download the stems is great!
This is incredibly inaccurate. China is why Russia is still even in the war and is still a functioning country. The EU itself supports Russia much more than the US does with its energy imports.
I mean I full source bootstrap deterministic operating systems for secure enclaves from zero. And by from zero, I mean from 180 bytes of human reviewable hex machine code all the way up to a llvm/rust/musl toolchain, custom rust init system, job manager, and a full cryptographic remote attestation stack. Also recently custom bootstrap compilers.
Truly I am not aware of many more complex problems in systems engineering than these, which is why I love working on them, though every new line written is exactly what I would have typed myself when I use LLMs. I mostly use LLMS to help me debug and surgically -delete- dead code and deps to get to results small enough to review in full.
And ~20M tokens a day results in about the max output I can keep up with and carefully review at key checkpoints.
My assumption is the fact my tokens are not unlimited and have ratcheted up one GPU at a time it has caused me to stay much more connected to every line written, but also I am a security engineer working on tech that cannot fail and must be reviewed by a minimum of two humans.
For someone working on video games, I imagine a more lax move fast and break things approach to LLMs might make more sense.
I cannot even comprehend what kind of project could possibly need 3B tokens in a day and still produce results a human could actually hope to review, but do share because I am curious!
That is extremely expensive and not even SOTA level LLMs. Good for you, but you are mistaken in thinking this is the "right" idea for everyone. It gives me a headache just thinking about doing that.
> How do the gears of capitalism keep turning without UBI in such a scenario?
The part you've got wrong here is thinking that Capitalism is equivalent to innovation and growth, which it is not.
Capitalism simply serves capital, and with less and less of its constraints being physically bound to resources, there is very much a plausible world in which only a small handful of consolidated bank accounts exist so long as those bank accounts can reasonably control the monopoly of violence.
There is a point historically in which Capitalism absolutely served to provide widespread innovation and prosperity at scale, but this is not a feature of capitalism inherently but rather a consequence of it when run within the existing system of labor mechanics at the time.
Capitalism can still very much exist within a Feudal structure of governance, its contributions to society will be much lesser, but it can still very much exist.
> there is very much a plausible world in which only a small handful of consolidated bank accounts exist so long as those bank accounts can reasonably control the monopoly of violence.
Capitalism means separation of violence from capital, if capital controls violence then its not capitalism because there can only be a free market when guns that can't be bribed with money protects it.
For example in communism capital control violence, that is why its so bad, since when capital controls violence it no longer need to produce good results to thrive, it can just use force, which is how every communist regime acted.
In anarchy capital also control violence, so its not capitalism, since without a state to prevent capital from hiring thugs to force others into submission you don't have a free market, whoever has the most thugs wins.
A prosperous middle class is not a requirement for capitalism to work, and there are more capitalist systems where that's not the case than where there is.
The upper class live in walled neighborhoods with private guards. There's a small merchant class, and then the majority of the population are working class. Much of Central and South America live like this.
There was no middle class to speak of while living under communism here in Eastern Europe. We were all queueing for food equally. Except the nomenklatura, of course.
Then they are in for a very rude awakening, given that the same God says "You must not wrong the widow and the orphan; wronged, they will cry out to me for redress, and their cry will be heard. My anger will blaze out against you, and I will smite you with the sword, making widows of your own wives, orphans of your own children." (Exodus 22:22-24).
That one person is (according to the previous comment) using words to suggest "this is a thing that will happen" though they are planning to make it happen? And that those words are attributed to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? And that the selfsame God also has the other words attributed to Him?
Or are you suggesting a particular ontological presumption about the declared speaker of those words, which would then reflect a different shade of meaning onto my declaration?
It's funny, because extreme poverty rates as defined by the UN have been decimated in the last century, and continue to drop, because of growth qua capitalism.
You're reflecting the populist notion that wealth is zero-sum. If that were true we'd still be in caves fighting over sticks. The average quality of life has skyrocketed in the last century alongside growth, and there's no non-capitalist country now or in history that's been an enviable place for average people to live.
It doesn't. Thought terminating clichés are rhetorical devices, I pointed out what real world data reflects. You're free to actually address it unless you want to redefine poverty to suit vibes.
What an odd comment. You think because he is the CEO of a rocket company that naturally he is beyond making stuff up and talking BS? Have you ever watched an interview of his?
And why are CEOs as smart as engineers now.
This isn't Twitter. You don't have to suck up to him. He won't ever see this.
You are the odd comment. It's been like this my entire life. I was like 20 when Elon was near bankruptcy when Tesla was basically nothing. Then I watched him found SpaceX and again almost run out of money. I then watched him make electric cars a reality from nothing. I then watched him turn the space industry completely upside down. You think elons a bad guy? Whatever. You lost your moral high ground as soon as you started lying. I've watched him give hundreds of interviews with off the cuff engineering specifics. I don't care if he sees this or not. Tired of humoring morons. This isn't reddit. You don't have to suck up to the commies.
Direct Instruction - and the largest educational study ever untaken Project Follow Through - would like a work. Project based learning?
Recall practice IS learning. Projects, exploration, and discovery-based "learning" sounds great in theory but in practice, without actual testing, really doesn't live up to the hype.
I should clarify -- since from both posts, my comment was ambiguous and misinterpreted:
I was explaining the article, not my views, since the top-level comment did not read it.
Regarding your comment, it is as wrong as the article. BOTH are important. Recall practice is great for e.g. developing surface understanding, declarative knowledge, and well-done, procedural knowledge.
That type of knowledge is necessary, but not sufficient, for high-level performance in most fields, at least beyond a spelling bee or vocab exam. To understand gaps, see:
- Complex problem-solving, which includes extensive conditional, conceptual, metacognitive, etc. knowledge. (e.g. see how top participants prep for math olympiads)
- Attitudes towards school / learning (one of the top predictors of future success by 3rd grade, together with reading)
- Transfer learning
- Cross-cutting / not explicitly represented knowledge / literature on expert blindspot
- Etc.
"Projects, exploration, and discovery-based 'learning'" work great in practice, when properly structured, which usually means explicit, well-defined learning objectives.
Bad: "Make a nice poster on selling a car"
Good: "Independently explore an organ system of the human body. Make a nice poster synthesizing what you learned and present it to the classroom in three weeks."
reply