"Poor imitations" is probably harsh, but I agree with the idea that LiveView's architecture is substantially different from Hotwire or LiveWire. To have experienced Hotwire is not to have experienced LiveView, ironically enough, for reasons outlined in the posted article.
The counterpoint here is that there is already a cause of action for this type of incompetence and it's called malpractice, which is a pretty reasonable road to remedy. I don't know if you actually think these were "fraudulent court documents", but "fraudulent" actually means something very specific and this ain't it. Even if the court is considering sanctions (which is not the same as disbarment), that seems at least partially related to the attys' failure to address their failure once they were aware of it.
Something interesting about the legal profession is that it is self-regulating. The state bars are typically not government organizations. Attorneys know that confidence in their profession is extremely important and they strike the balance between preserving that confidence and, you know, destroying someone's livelihood because they don't understand how LLMs work.
I've been in a similar situation. My advice is to make sure you budget in recovery time. I've had burnout that took 2 weeks to recover from, and I've have burnout that took 2 months to recover from. Just make sure you don't take on more "burnout debt" than you'll be able to repay before having to start your next thing.
I'm sure most of us have worked for shit companies that have taken advantage of us. In those cases, I think your points can be helpful.
But I'd also suggest that it's possible to find companies that align with your values, both around work/life balance and around the way the work gets done. That's certainly a skill that I've had to work to develop. And I've had some major misses along the way. But it's probably also the most important skill I've developed.
Owning your company's problems, at least a subset of them, is that fastest (only?) way to move up in a company. If you want to climb the ladder at all, you'll have to own some problems. The key is to do that for a company that recognizes and rewards that ownership. And as soon as they don't, then you become the merc and find a new thing.
> But I'd also suggest that it's possible to find companies that align with your values, both around work/life balance and around the way the work gets done.
How? I keep reading this in similar discussions, but I haven’t found practical advice on how to actually do that. And I can’t trust myself because I keep joining shitty companies on that front one after another.
I'll caveat that this is mostly tailor toward SaaS companies, but it's all I really know:
I think my proxy for work-life balance is days of PTO. I'm typically going to take ~20 a year. That's what I need to recharge and avoid burnout. In a interview with a manager I would ask:
"So, in the job description it says you have Flexible PTO, what does that actually look like here?"
Usually they'll give me some sort of range or average.
A way to cut down on the chances of working for shitty leadership is to ensure you work with high performers. (not foolproof, but helpful) High performers don't like working for shitty leadership. I borrow my proxy for high performance here from the excellent book, Accelerate (Forsgren, Humble, and Kim), and look for the engineering org to implement CI/CD as well as IAC (Infrastructure As Code). I'll ask about these during question time of the technical interview, as well as other things I care about (testing philosophy, etc). I'm sure there are really great organizations that don't do CI/CD or IAC, but I would have to know _for sure_ that they were great, to work for them.
These are obviously super high level proxies for organizational health from the perspective of an engineer. But reading up on organizational health more broadly can help you identify some red flags these proxies don't cover. Check out The Five Dysfunctions of a Team by Patrick Lencioni. It's a fantastic book on organizational health.
Lastly, networking can be very challenging but also very helpful here. It's not something that comes easy to me, but it has helped tremendously in figuring out which companies in my community I do and do not want to work for. This could be less relevant now that almost everyone is cool with remote work. But even my most recent job post-covid, was something I found because of my network. Go to meetups. Go to conferences. Get coffee with people who do similar things. It can really pay off.
Perhaps I misunderstood the video in that case, maybe it was a subset of the tax code. But he copied and pasted the entirety of what appeared to be the official tax code.
Depends what you mean by "regular cloud service", but broadly Fly.io and Heroku are examples of Platform-As-A-Service, versus AWS, GCP, Azure, and Digital Ocean which are more Infrastructure-As-A-Service. https://www.redhat.com/en/topics/cloud-computing/iaas-vs-paa...
The people who don't see the value in generating language that has a purpose outside of narrow niche of communicating facts will be let down for some time. This feels very Wittgenstein's Tractatus. There are so many other ways that we use language.
Yes, that's true. But ChatGPT isn't trained to play any language game other than: "make a plausible sounding sentence".
The issue it has with facts is the same issue it'll have with any language game, in that it only understands how to mimic playing the game, without understanding the underlying rules of the game.
Nit: Tractatus is early Wittgenstein. Language games come from Philosophical Investigations-era Wittgenstein which is almost a complete rejection of his approach in Tractatus.
Ah yeah, my mistake. I'd assumed that the GP was referring to the later work and echoing its core premise (language has no intrinsic meaning; or rather takes on meaning from context and intent).
As an aside to anyone reading, would highly recommend internalizing the Tractatus. It really helps side step a lot of "high minded" debates (ex: is X conscious, is it moral to do Y) by actually making you ground what you actually mean when you say "conscious", "moral", etc.
In many ways LLMs are more in support of the Philosophical Investigations era understanding of language and less in support of the logical positivist understanding of language put forth my Frege...
Like, the Frege approach is like the symbolic AI approach... define the rules, derive the meaning from the rules.
The PI approach is like the LLM approach... derive the rules and meaning from "experiencing" the use of the language.
Eg, we don't need to define what a "game" is. We know when something is a game or not even if we can't come up with an explicit set of rules for defining all instances of what we would otherwise "feel" was a game.
Well, if there've been about 120B humans ever, and we speak fewer than 1B words per lifetime, and the average word takes 1 byte to store, that's about a fifth of all data stored in AWS (according to Wolfram Alpha). It's undoubtedly a lot, and yet clearly within human capability. And of course that ignores optimizations that'd certainly drop that high estimate by many orders of magnitude.
I think you're misunderstanding Searle's Chinese Room. It has a response for every sequence of conversation, ever. It doesn't store every conversation that has happened; it stores every possible conversation that's possible, whether it'll ever happen or not.
It would be able to handle the following exchange:
Person: "Here's a cool question, ready?"
Room: "Ready."
Person: "What was the last message I sent to you?"
It can respond appropriately to the following sentence:
Person: "Hey, I'm gonna say something. Here is a sentence. Can you repeat the previous sentence back to me?"
Otherwise, why bother with all of this AI stuff? Just build Searle's Chinese Room as an index and you have a perfect chatbot.
