Exactly. Any company promoting their values lost all credibility. It's just corporate lies until they find an investor. And I hate being treated like a child and lied to.
Just tell me that you're waiting for the money shot and then I can take you seriously. Otherwise just F O.
> Who's going to pay your bills when the $20k is gone after 3 months?
And who's going to maintain this turd the LLM pushed out? It's a cool one-shot sort of thing, but let's not pretend this is useful as a real compiler or something anyone would like to maintain, as a human.
One could keep improving one the implementation by vibing more, but I think that's just taking you to the wrong direction of the rabbit hole.
"With 45 percent of enterprise employees now using generative AI tools, 77 percent of these AI users have been copying and pasting data into their chatbot queries, the LayerX study says. A bit more than a fifth (22 percent) of these copy and paste operations include PII/PCI."
That's because when the failure becomes the context, it can clearly express the intent of not falling for it again. However, when the original problem is the context, none of this obviousness applies.
Very typical, and gives LLMs the annoying Captain Hindsight -like behaviour.
The format of the article comes across as AI-sloppy. Each section is filled with numbered lists and there are several AIsms, such as the omni-present "not-only-x-but-y".
Thanks for the feedback on the formatting.
While I do use tools to help structure thoughts and edit for clarity (which might explain the lists and phrasing you noticed), the core technical analysis regarding the challenges of optical flow vs. spatiotemporal AI stems directly from our actual engineering work in building video restoration models.
The goal was to make complex concepts digestible, but I appreciate the note on style. I hope the substance of the technical argument still comes through.
reply