Well, there is a financial 'sink' - stockpiles and ammunition or other non-reusable military gear are basically the definition of money 'destroyed'. Their political value is almost non-existent actual money. If any, at all.
> stockpiles and ammunition or other non-reusable military gear are basically the definition of money 'destroyed'
Goods like longer-lasting food, medical supplies or a strategic oil reserve are not wasted. The money that went into supplying them has gone back into the economy, and they serve a more strategic purpose than the market participants could have borne (i.e. societal insurance policies). The same could also be said of military stockpiles, and continuing to buy them sustains a capability that is hard to get back once lost.
Those stockpiles weren’t created by putting money into a shredder and getting ammunition out. They were created by paying for the materials and labor. At that point the government’s money is frozen and stockpiled, but the economy still has the money that was spent.
Sorry but isn't the bottleneck then simply to do even relevant things? Like how much of a qualified backlog do you have that your pipeline does not run dry?
I think the reason the pelican example is great is because it's bizarre enough that it's unlikely that to appear in the training as one unified picture.
If we picked something more common, like say, a hot dog with toppings, then the training contamination is much harder to control.
While this is funny, the actual race already started in how companies can nudge LLM results towards their products. We can't be saved from enshittification, I fear.
I'm concerned for a future where adults stop realizing they themselves sound like LLMs because the majority of their interaction/reading is output from LLMs. Decades of corporations being the ones molding the very language we use is going to have an interesting effect.
More specifically regarding spec-driven development:
There's a good reason that most successful examples of those tools like openspec are to-do apps etc. As soon as the project grows to 'relevant' size of complexity, maintaining specs is just as hard as whatever other methodology offers. Also from my brief attempts - similar to human based coding, we actually do quite well with incomplete specs. So do agents, but they'll shrug at all the implicit things much more than humans do. So you'll see more flip-flopped things you did not specify, and if you nail everything down hard, the specs get unwieldy - large and overly detailed.
> if you nail everything down hard, the specs get unwieldy - large and overly detailed
That's a rather short-sighted way of putting it. There's no way that the spec is anywhere as unwieldly as the actual code, and the more details, the better. If it gets too large, work on splitting a self-contained subset of it to a separate document.
> There's no way that the spec is anywhere as unwieldly as the actual code, and the more details, the better.
I disagree - the spec is more unwieldy, simply by the fact of using ambiguous language without even the benefit of a type checker or compiler to verify that the language has no ambiguities.
People are keen to forget that programming languages are specs. And a good technique for coding is to build up you own set of symbols (variables, struct, and functions) so that the spec become easier to write and edit. Writing spec with natural language is playing russian roulette with the goals of the system, using AI as the gun.
Everybody feels like this, and I think nobody stays ahead of the curve for a prolonged time. There's just too many wrinkles.
But also, you don't have to upgrade every iteration. I think it's absolutely worthwhile to step off the hamster wheel every now and then, just work with you head down for a while and come back after a few weeks. One notices that even though the world didn't stop spinning, you didn't get the whiplash of every rotation.
That is a wobbly assertion. You certainly would need to run the same compiler, forgo any recent optimisations, architecture updates and the likes if your code has numerical sensitive parts.
You certainly can get identical results, but it's equally certainly not going to be that simple a path frequently.
> You certainly can get identical results, but it's equally certainly not going to be that simple a path frequently.
But at least I know that if I need to, I can do it. With an LLM, if you don't store the original weights, all bets are off. Reproducibility of results can be a hard requirement in certain cases or industries.
The more important point is that even when you don’t get identical binary output, you still get identical observable behavior as specified by the programming language, unless there’s a compiler bug. That’s not the case for LLMs, they are more like an always randomly buggy compiler. You wouldn’t want to use such a compiler.
Yes, even if you create a single person account, you create an 'organization' to be billed. That's the whole confusion here. Y'all seemingly don't have an account at anthropic?
reply