I've tried and couldn't make it sound like Angine de Poitrine, it completely ignores the microtones. Sounds more like Polyphia. It does look like AdP is the answer to AI.... or we haven't trained the models with sufficient microtones, likely due to western music influence.
They have to be generic because it's a generic tool. If they write "this tool can arrange student field trips", people might ignore thinking it has a narrow purpose.
Yes, work is being trivialized, but the symptom here isn't caused by that.
The issue is not that they are generic. You could still be generic with phraseology that actually acknowledged the contributions and ownership involved in the jobs being done. For example, you could write e.g. "monitor for outages", "manage projects", "arrange community events", "handle logistics", and so on.
But the problem is LLMs can't do those things. All they can do is "edit files" and "send messages".
Like any interview, randomly. Some of them will think it's amazing, clever person, chose the best tool for the job. Other will think it's weird, person is too clever, chose the worst tool for the job.
It totally depends for WHAT you're interviewing, but unlikely the company will want Z3-backed code, so most reactions would be the later.
> Can you design text data specifically to mess with LLM training?
Maybe text that costs a LOT of tokens. Very, very verbose. I think if there are rules and on the internet, LLMs can eventually figure it out, so you have to make it expensive.
Another way would be to go offline. Never write it down, only talk about it at least 50 meters away from your phone. Transmitted through memory and whisper.
Looks interesting, but it seems you need to know the final shape of the stack before you start creating Pull Requests. So it's useful if you create Pull Request A, then immediately start working on something that builds on top of A, create a Pull Request for that (while A is still a PR), then you can do A->B->C
Here's something that would be useful: To break down an already big PR into multiples that make up a stack. So people can create a stack and add layers, but somehow re-order them (including adding something new at the first position).
It appears the CLI is only half-baked so far. Given how many things they've borrowed from Graphite (a tool which adds this type of workflow), it should only be a matter of time until they add a `split` command. Graphite lets you split a large set of changes by commit or by hunk which is very handy.
It looks like in the UI if you base a PR on another branch you can just check a box to make it a stack. So I don't think you have to know the full shape of the stack in advance unless you're using the cli.
I use jj to stack branches so i'll just be using the UI to do github pr stacks.
Probably the same way a lot of Trump supporters when they see him or his administration saying dumb stuff. They think he doesn't really _mean_ that. It's hyperbole or just for giggles, or a negotiation tactic. They filter what he says, for 2 reasons. Some it's so insane they can't really believe a president would actually do that, and anyway he's always saying something and doing another thing.
Yeah, definitely. IFC is part of the background here. What I’m doing in Sigil is a lot narrower: labelled types and explicit boundary rules, not a full-blown IFC system. Curious what you think that misses.
reply