Whenever someone brings up washing machines and software, I am always reminded of Forth[0]:
As an example, imagine a microprocessor-controlled washing
machine programmed in Forth. The ultimate command in your
example is named WASHER. Here is the definition of WASHER,
as written in Forth:
: WASHER WASH SPIN RINSE SPIN ;
> ... if the LLM hits a wall it’s first inkling is not to step back and understand why the wall exists and then change course, its first inkling is ...
LLM's do not "understand why." They do not have an "inkling."
Claiming they do is anthropomorphizing a statistical token (text) document generator algorithm.
The more concerning algorithms at play are how they are post-trained. And the then concern of reward hacking. Which is what he was getting at.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reward_hacking
100% - we really shouldn't anthropomorphize. But the current models are capable of being trained in a way to steer agentic behavior from reasoned token generation.
> But the current models are capable of being trained in a way to steer agentic behavior from reasoned token generation.
This does not appear to be sufficient in the current state, as described in the project's README.md:
Why This Exists
We learned the hard way that instructions aren't enough to
keep AI agents in check. After Claude Code silently wiped
out hours of progress with a single rm -rf ~/ or git
checkout --, it became evident that "soft" rules in an
CLAUDE.md or AGENTS.md file cannot replace hard technical
constraints. The current approach is to use a dedicated
hook to programmatically prevent agents from running
destructive commands.
Perhaps one day this category of plugin will not be needed. Until then, I would be hard-pressed to employ an LLM-based product having destructive filesystem capabilities based solely on the hope of them "being trained in a way to steer agentic behavior from reasoned token generation."
Skill entropy is a result of reliance on tools to perform tasks which otherwise would contribute to and/or reinforce a person's ability to master same. Without exercising one's acquired learning, skills can quickly fade.
For example, an argument can be made that spellcheckers commonly available in programs degrade people's ability to spell correctly without this assistance (such as when using pen and paper).
1 - In C++, a struct is no different than a class
other than a default scope of public instead of
private.
2 - The use of braces for property initialization
in a constructor is malformed C++.
3 - C++ is not C, as the author eventually concedes:
At this point, my C developer spider senses are tingling:
is Response response; the culprit? It has to be, right? In
C, that's clear undefined behavior to read fields from
response: The C struct is not initialized.
In short, if the author employed C++ instead of trying to use C techniques, all they would have needed is a zero cost constructor definition such as:
In the banking subdomain of credit/debit/fleet/stored-value card processing, over time when considering regulation and format evolution, services provided by banks/ISOs/VARs will effectively exhibit FP traits regardless the language(s) used to implement them.
Savvy processors recognize the immutability of each API version published to Merchants, along with how long each must be supported, and employ FP techniques both in design and implementation of their Merchant gateways.
Of course, the each bank's mainframes "on the rails" do not change unless absolutely necessary (and many times not even then).
> I want to, no, need to improve my ability to focus on the task at hand.
> Other than that near-universal constant, I want to try being a bit of a jack of many trades this year: learn full-stack, practice vibe coding, basics of graphics programming (update to the latest ways)
Therein lies the problem.
To want to "focus on the task at hand" and then express the desire to "try being a bit of a jack of many trades" is a mutually exclusive goal set.
If you want to improve focusing skills, then it is best to pick one thing from the "many trades" and master only it before beginning another. If the "ability to focus on the task at hand" is not really all that important in the grander scheme of things and topically bouncing around is where you find happiness, then I humbly suggest to not beat yourself up about focusing on "the task at hand."
Either is an equally valid choice which none need judge, since it is your own after all.
Two low-risk and cheap ways to develop relevant driving skills are bumper cars[0] and go-karts[1]. This may appear to be silly at first, but both involve the same hand-eye coordination and decision skills of vehicular driving (though the latter is no where nearly as fun as the others).
The real way is just to ride a bike. You can ride it on the road so you'll learn how the road works as well as how to operate a vehicle. When I got in a car the only things that took time to learn were operating the clutch and manoeuvres in tight spaces (you need to develop spacial awareness that you won't get from cycling). If I had learnt to drive an auto it would have been trivially easy after years of cycling.
The biggest pro of a bike is it teaches you to read the road and traffic ahead for energy conservation (and defensive driving).
On a bike, this mostly reduces pedaling; in a car this can reduce unnecessary braking, safer driving distances, which make you a more predictable driver.
It also gives you a lifelong respect for people so if you do drive you won't treat humans like annoying obstacles that might ruin your paintwork if you hit them.
I believe 100% that nobody should be allowed behind the wheel of a motor vehicle before obtaining cycling proficiency.
Honestly I found it the other way around, learning to drive made me a significantly better and safer cyclist as I realised what drivers are expecting to happen, and actually had to learn the rules of the road. Before I learned to drive I didn't really know what was expected or legal in a lot of situations in the city especially.
It should be taught really, but unfortunately car-centric society means road=car for a lot of people. Cycling is more advanced because road positioning is much more important, plus you have to deal with cars. So it's kinda ridiculous we don't teach it in schools. Apparently they used to back in my parents' day (it was called cycling proficiency).
This is a curious suggestion. Higher end go-karts I can't contest, but I've never found bumper cars to be anything like operating a car. It would probably help, but at some point they're going to need to drive something with more weight and horsepower.
> This is a curious suggestion. Higher end go-karts I can't contest, but I've never found bumper cars to be anything like operating a car.
A unique simulation bumper cars can provide is in collision avoidance and real-time steering/acceleration/braking skills. The value of this is relative and dependent upon a person using time in a bumper car with intent to hone driving skills.
I've been driving for about a year (with my first car too) when I drove a bunch of friends to an out-of-town amusement park. It's some kind of car-warming thing for me. It's about an hour-long drive without traffic.
In the park, I made it a hard point not to ride the bumper cars because I thought it would mess with my muscle-memory as the designated driver. If not for that, I really love bumper cars. However, I've found that responsiveness of bumper cars vary a lot per park; it either depends on the maintenance or the maker of the rides. And IME, none of them are really comparable to even the shittiest cars I've driven (e.g., the ones from the driving school, the assigned car for my license test).
But my bigger concern that day was the fact that the bumper car mindset is not the roadcar driver mindset. For learners, the free-for-all chaotic nature of the track is not even a good simulation! Not even if you're driving somewhere like India or China.
Speaking of simulation, I really want an affordable but legit way to practice dealing with outlier driving scenarios. Like, what if my brake fails in the highway, what if I get a flat while doing 100KPH---stuff even the safest, most defensive drivers can't entirely rule out. Anyone know of games that might fit the bill?
Sure. I cannot imagine anyone living without the most common aliases anymore, but in a script you either need to alias again, or expand. Happens so often to me also.
> C was designed as a high level language and stayed so for decades
C was designed as a "high level language" relative to the assembly languages available at the time and effectively became a portable version of same in short order. This is quite different to other "high level languages" at the time, such as FORTRAN, COBOL, LISP, etc.
When C was invented, K&R C, it was hardly lower level than other systems programming languages that predated it, since JOVIAL in 1958.
It didn't not even had compiler intrisics, a concept introduced by ESPOL in 1961, allowing to program Burroughs systems without using an external Assembler.
K&R C was high level enough that many of the CPU features people think about nowadays when using compiler extensions, as they are not present in the ISO C standard, had to be written as external Assembly code, the support for inline Assembly came later.
I think we are largely saying the same thing, as described in the introduction of the K&R C book:
C is a relatively "low level" language. This
characterization is not pejorative; it simply means that C
deals with the same sort of objects that most computers do,
namely characters, numbers, and addresses.[0]
reply