Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

Chamath on how AI agents are making the "10x engineer" distinction disappear because the most efficient "code paths" are now obvious to everyone. Just as AI solved chess and removed the mystery of the best move, AI is doing the same for coding, making the process reductive and removing...

831,450 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

.David Deutsch: "What's currently called AI and AGI are not only different from each other, they are very close to being the exact opposites of each other. The reason is that an AI, current AI is like an AI that diagnoses diseases or an AI that plays chess or an AI that controls a huge factory. Those things have objective functions, that is they have a function that they are designed to maximize and that is why they are used in those particular applications. Or in military terms, you could say the objective is to hit the target. You might say the objective is to hit the target unless some thing specified, but it's a specified thing comes up in which case don't hit the target and so on. This is, as I said, almost the opposite of what humans do when humans think. For a start, the AI has to be obedient, that is it has to actually do the things it is programmed to do, whereas a human is fundamentally disobedient, especially when being creative. When a human plays chess, they are performing a completely different kind of computation. They don't do the same things, they don't investigate the same possibilities that the artificial chess playing machine does, because the artificial one is capable of looking at billions and billions of possibilities, whereas the human can only look at hundreds or something. They are doing something completely different. Another difference is that the human can explain, can write a book later, having become world champion, can write a book saying how I did it, as the computer program that beats the world champion can write no such book, because it has no idea how it did it. It was just following a program. I was doing this and that and that and none of that is illuminating. Also, third thing, the chess player can decide I don't want to play chess anymore, from now on I will play Go or from now on I will play tennis. If commanded to play chess, the functionality will deteriorate completely. Those things are different. What we want in an AGI is that it behaves in a way that cannot be specified in advance, because if you specified it, you would already have the answer. The AGI program has to give unexpected answers, answers to questions we didn't even know how to ask."

Deutsch Explains

72,455 просмотров • 1 год назад

Why is observability so hard to do well - and so expensive, in general? What is "Observability 2.0" and is Open Telemetry any good? In today's episode of The Pragmatic Engineer Podcast, we answer all of these with Charity Majors , co-author of the O'Reilly book "Observability Engineering," former engineer at Parse/Facebook, and cofounder and CTO at Honeycomb Watch it here: • YouTube: • Apple: • Spotify: • Summary and transcript: Brought to you by our wonderful sponsors - check out their offerings: • Sonar — Trust your developers – verify your AI-generated code. • Vanta — Automate compliance and simplify security with Vanta ---- Topics we cover in this episode: • What is observability? Charity’s take • What is “Observability 2.0?” • Why Charity is a fan of platform teams • Why DevOps is an overloaded term: and probably no longer relevant • What is cardinality? And why does it impact the cost of observability so much? • How OpenTelemetry solves for vendor lock-in • Why Honeycomb wrote its own database • Why having good observability should be a prerequisite to adding AI code or using AI agents • And more! --- My biggest takeaways: 1. The DevOps movement feels like it’s in its final days, having served its purpose. 2. Lots of people get dashboards wrong! Charity doesn’t think that static dashboards are helpful to engineering teams at all. In fact, misusing dashboards is one of the most common observability practices. 3. Observability will be especially important for AI use cases in these ways: a) o11y for LLMs: to get data on how they behave and to be able to debug behaviors. This is relevant for teams building and operating AI models. b) o11y for code generated by AI: the generated code should have the right amount of observability in place. Once the code is deployed to production, developers need to be able to get a sense of how the code is behaving there!

Gergely Orosz

25,485 просмотров • 1 год назад