☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆

  • 386 Posts
  • 313 Comments
Joined 5 years ago
cake
Cake day: January 18th, 2020

help-circle







  • Existence of a ruling class implies there’s a class of people separate from the rest of society, such as the oligarchy in US where you live. That’s the actual oppressive society that you happen to be a member of. This was demonstrably not the case in USSR. Let’s take look at the background of the leaders of USSR to drive the point home. Khrushchev was born in a village in a peasant family, Brezhnev was a son of a metalworker, Gorbachev came from a peasant family as well. If it was as you claim, then people like this could have never risen to top leadership positions. The reason it was possible for a regular person from a village to rise to the top of the political structure was precisely because USSR was an egalitarian society that provided opportunity to everyone. The fact that you claim to have lived in USSR and don’t even understand the basics of how it worked is frankly embarrassing.




  • My family was a regular working family. I don’t know what this ruling class you speak of is either. Even if you just look at the background of all the leaders of USSR, they all have regular working class background. Meanwhile, last I checked churches existed in USSR, right to personal property also existed. The reality is that every society places some restrictions on personal freedoms, but claiming that the restrictions USSR placed on people were oppressive is the height of intellectual dishonesty.



  • I can say that with absolute confidence having personally grown up in USSR. Similarly, if you look at the public opinions from China or Cuba it’s pretty clear nobody is feeling oppressed. You can even login in to Xiaohongshu yourself and talk to people in China and see they’re not oppressed. Seems that all the people oppressed by communists are either scum bag capitalist or they exist solely in the deranged minds of western libs.









  • I very much expect that programming discipline is about to change quite drastically. I expect programmers will have a role that’s somewhere between a mathematician and a business analyst. The core aspect of the process that requires a human in the loop is the verification step. You need a human to actually understand what the requirements are and then ensure that the software meets these requirements. I strongly expect that writing formal contracts that LLMs will fulfill will be the way we develop a lot of software going forward.




  • I expect that programmers are going to incresingly focus on defining specifications while LLMs will handle the grunt work. Imagine declaring what the program is doing, e.g., “This API endpoint must return user data in <500ms, using ≤50MB memory, with O(n log n) complexity”, and an LLM generates solutions that adhere to those rules. It could be an approach similar to the way genetic algorithms work, where LLM can try some initial solutions, then select ones that are close to the spec, and iterate until the solution works well enough.

    I’d also argue that this is a natural evolution. We don’t hand-assemble machine code today, most people aren’t writing stuff like sorting algorithms from scratc, and so on. I don’t think it’s a stretch to imagine that future devs won’t fuss with low-level logic. LLMs can be seen as “constraint solvers” akin to a chess engine, but for code. It’s also worth noting that Modern tools already do this in pockets. AWS Lambda lets you define “Run this function in 1GB RAM, timeout after 15s”, imagine scaling that philosophy to entire systems.