"the crazy part to me is how blatant the executives of bricks and minifigs are in saying go ahead and try to sue us, we’ll drag this out "
To my experience this is a common strategy in disputes when the corporate party has people who operate as uncivilized brutes. I think it's part of the McKinseyfication of companies - profits at all cost - and here's the playbook.
My personal experience is from private parking control. Rather than be professional about my reclamation, their first response was "only criminals dispute these and we win all the court cases".
So I think trying to be imposing and villanous to scare the other non-corporate party to back off is a common global corporate playbook in situations in matters where companies enter contractual complex space with individuals.
Very rarely do corporations act like this once there’s any sort of spotlight on them. Especially over such a relatively small number. This is nothing to do with any standard corporate tactics and everything to do with the guys in charge being complete dick heads.
OP (solenoid0937) is an unfounded AI-hype peddler and an Anthropic shill (check their comment history), do not expect them to provide an actual example of their wild claims.
You could have easily disproved my claim by linking your comments with a more balanced or nuanced opinions on the matter, except you cannot, because there is only even more outlandish and wild stuff you say about AI and LLMs.
It‘s perfectly ok to share opinions that aren’t nuanced or balanced. You seem to have something strongly against that specific user, the fact that you felt the need to go through so much of their history, post a massive list of their „suspicious“ comments, and mention in multiple places how they are a shill is pretty concerning imho and doesn’t make you look good at all. Their activity looks fine, they seem to be enthusiastic and optimistic about the technology, but that’s pretty much it.
And now you’re asking them to somehow disprove they aren’t a shill? How would that even work. You seem unnecessarily antagonistic towards that user
I did not have to go through "so much of their history", this is just the last 9 days. There are considerably wilder claims from them earlier, when the account was solely focused on propping up LLM-hype and defending Anthropic.
We are living through a period of time with one of the potentially most disruptive technologies ever being developed. A lot (A LOT) of money is invested into it, a lot of livelihoods are and might be affected by it, and some people stand to gain A LOT from it. So there are significant interests to sway public opinion in favour of LLMs and AI, to hype it up to unreasonable extent, to muddle the waters of a reasonable discourse. Accounts such as solenoid0937 are unleashed on public forums to achieve that, and because of that we have to take everything they write with a huge grain of salt, or even ignore completely, as there is just no true information in their comments.
You yourself got baited by them by considering what they wrote seriously regarding "amazing things with unlimited tokens". Now the idea that "LLMs 1) are used in one of FAANGs massively and 2) are used to produce amazing things" is planted. Will you remember later that they did not actually provide any evidence of that? The account has been doing this trick multiple times over the last few weeks.
For me, as someone who is actually using LLMs in their work, a single balanced comment on the matter would have been more than enough to consider them not being a shill. Unfortunately, instead they have claimed recently that they went completely full-on with agentic coding (https://qht.co/item?id=48245721) skipping reviews and pushing to prod directly (https://qht.co/item?id=48243651) at a FAANG, no less. And they claimed it in such a manner that this is objectively the only proper way to do the work, and all other approaches are doomed. How is this anything else than peddling unfounded LLM-hype, I do not know.
The example above might seem like a singular episode, but they have been doing it over and over for the last year and a half, so this is now a pattern. No actual evidence for any of their claims is provided, so the only thing left is AI-hype, and pretty wild at that. So why would a reasonable person, with ostensibly enough money to retire (https://qht.co/item?id=48252297), ostensibly working at a FAANG, spend all their days spreading unfounded AI-hype in a degrading manner on HN and defending Anthropic? Given the vested financial interest in the technology, the most plausible answer here is that they are paid to do so.
I have explicitly stated more than once, beforehand, what would have given you a benefit of doubt from my perspective. Even after reading all that you opted for answer evasion, rather than providing any substance, as you do with all the questions addressed to you. I do understand why you had to do it here though, because the claims regarding AI and LLM you have made before are even more outlandish than what has been posted over the last 10 days and similarly without a single shred of proof.
I find it so funny that claims like this are so outlandish to you that it makes you think I'm a shill:
> Unfortunately, instead they have claimed recently that they went completely full-on with agentic coding skipping reviews and pushing to prod directly at a FAANG, no less.
This is like the most normal thing in my org, lmao. The fact that this aggravates you so much, is proof to me that many people/industries are way behind the curve on agents. Still bullish!
> as someone who is actually using LLMs in their work,
You should consider that your way of using LLMs is not the only correct way, and may in fact be severely limited, unimaginative, and/or close-minded.
Nothing of substance yet again, more unfounded LLM-hype. As a reminder, this whole thread started by other people asking you to provide examples or proofs of your outlandish claims. Instead of doing that you ignore the questions or cover behind NDA (which is bullshit, because 1) no one is asking about the secret sauce, only the end result and 2) most of the work in FAANGs does not require signing NDA, and you would have known it if you actually worked at a FAANG).
Moreover, you refuse to even name the organization you allegedly work at. This is because people who actually work there will immediately call you out on your bullshit, so you have to stay intentionally vague there.
This is just yet another evidence of you being a shill.
lol. lmao, even. Everything is under an NDA unless otherwise stated. It's hilarious to me that you think it's fine for me to give away our competitive advantage on HN.
And give away my org, for what? So some HN loser can doxx me?
Anyways, there's no point. If you learn to use agents, you'll understand eventually. If you don't, well, that's a you problem.
Once again, no proofs of your claims, only more LLM-hype and personal attacks.
No, you are intentionally being obtuse, because people have already called you out on your lies. Saying "my team worked on <X>" is not under NDA in 90%+ cases, and no one is asking you for the implementation details for the <X>.
Name your company so others from it can confirm what you have claimed regarding AI and LLMs or deny it. Each FAANG being 10k+ (and in most cases 50-100k+) makes doxxing you unlikely, as others have done so on this forum without any problem.
In my mind design and theory are inseparable. Design is the accumulation of many design decisions. Theory explains what influenced those decisions.
Design needs theory to be intentional. It can of course be accidental (”seems to work, I guess”) or intuitive (”i know in my guts this is right but cant explain it”).
While both can end up with functional systems, if you cant vocalize the design journey the system is not very maintainable in the industrial sense (hence - theory is the vocalization of the design and the forces that influenced it).
In the sense that you seem to be using "theory" I'd somewhat agree, else all you really have is an artifact, not a intentional design. You could say the design is what-it-is, while the theory is why-it is, and both are certainly useful to document.
Where I'd tend to disagree, is whether the processs of programming is well described as "theory building" in this sense. The process is not the same as the destination, and the rationale for the destination is not always going to honestly reflect the process of getting there. I would also say that the process is not really about building/evolving these design-specific theories, although others may disagree.
For me, what drives the programming/design process is more the things I mentioned - at least as much general principles of software design, decomposition, factorization, orthogonalization, decoupling, minimal interfaces, etc, as it is about problem-specific design and theory. One does of course also have an evolving mental model of the parts of the problem and how they inter-relate (how one might break the problem down into modules and classes, etc), but I think that when things "click" and you go "Aha! I like this!", it's often more about generic design principles, and familiar design patterns, than it is about some problem-specific "theory" that you are evolving.
It's very hard, if not impossible, to describe the exact mental process of software design. I seems it has to be, like all reasoning and learnt-skill based behavior, a process of of subconscious pattern matching and doing what worked before. Biological RL if you like. I think it's possible to understand some of the patterns involved, such as these generic software design principles, but it'd be post-hoc rationalization to claim that some specific design rationale had been driving the whole process.
It seems it's the same for experts in any domain, e.g. chess - they can probably not tell you exactly why they selected a particular move, or why they intuitively ignored other potential lines, but can post-hoc provide endless theory and analysis of why it nonetheless made sense!
Another point of view is that LLM:s perform to an extent on the same level as outsourcing does. This interface requires a bit more contract mass than doing everything within single team.
Having worked in CAD for over a decade previously, I think the users want a product surface, and the people paying for the engineers time want a reliable trainable solution that will exist exactly as it is today in five years. They are happy to pay for it in monthly installments.
This is a separate dimension to alternative high quality modeling solutions alone.
Now, some of the users especially are _proud_ of their product specific skill set. They don't _want_ to switch a package.
And - it's much easier to get professional engineers to use extensions to packages their engineering office already uses.
And this comes before any technical side-by-side feature comparison.
The article summarizes the functional parts so well. What is very hard to communicate is the feeling of space, especially in the top floor with the books. It's sort of unique, and recommend a visit anyone traveling nearby.
I worked at the company that developed the software used to design the construction of Oodi (Trimble/ Tekla Structures). It's so awesome to walk through a building you know the tool you helped to build, helped to build :D
> Consumer don't care if the OS is proprietary, as long as it works
I agree entirely (and they also don't even care if there's a trustable party who they can trust, just look at how many people happily use Google).
And this is exactly the mentality that's gotten us where we are. Consumers don't care about these things, and then end up lock into vendor ecosystems like the one op is describing here.
To my experience this is a common strategy in disputes when the corporate party has people who operate as uncivilized brutes. I think it's part of the McKinseyfication of companies - profits at all cost - and here's the playbook.
My personal experience is from private parking control. Rather than be professional about my reclamation, their first response was "only criminals dispute these and we win all the court cases".
So I think trying to be imposing and villanous to scare the other non-corporate party to back off is a common global corporate playbook in situations in matters where companies enter contractual complex space with individuals.
reply