Even looking for companies which supply services is now far better on AI chats than Google. For me being visible in AI training is going to be more important than search in the next year or two.
If I was a big AI company I'd certainly be tempted to make sure that anyone who excluded themselves from "AI training" also got themselves excluded from AI results.
I think the main problem in England is that there is just too much traffic for too little road. I don't think there is a simple infrastructure solution to that problem.
For example I was going to point out that roundabout completely fail when one direction becomes nose to tail congested but when I thought about local examples, I'd rather take that over a set of traffic lights where it becomes near impossible to get out from one direction if the traffic keeps backing up onto the junction.
> I think the main problem in England is that there is just too much traffic for too little road.
I think Jevons paradox basically guarantees this in both countries. The difference between the two countries (in my theory) is how much responsibility they're willing to place on the drivers. The UK requires much more driver effort for good reasons I suggest in another thread.
In the 90s aircraft manufacturers basically stopped whole segments of the market (anything smaller than a piston twin) due to litigation. I wouldn't be horribly surprised to find we spend the next 10 years fighting about this stuff in court.
I'm fully aware of lots of times powerful companies have used the courts to protect their business. My point is basically all of the powerful companies are elbow deep in LLMs to the extent of some sort of mutually assured destruction if they were to start court cases like this.
LLMs have been firing out a lot of code for a year or 2 now at least, so I would have thought we'd start seeing some court cases by now?
It's purely conjecture at this point but my gut feeling is most companies are in high spirits about the costs they can save and the benefits it can bring to their own business. I don't think enough time has passed to see really high profile losers. What happens when Infosys starts losing money or Free CAD becomes the next SolidWorks due to LLM driven improvements?
The lack of modern small airplane designs, especially engines, is the extensive and thus expensive certification process. Most of what is a "new" airplane usually is derived from a very old, grandfathered design.
The only real innovation for small planes is in the electric flight area - when you gotta do a full certification anyway as you're piloting an entirely new drivetrain, you can financially afford to be much more innovative on other parts of the design.
I personally would never dump a claude code response into a PR body an ask someone to address it. I can't believe any developer would find this to be appropriate or fulfilling the duty of reviewing code.
I think it's pretty clear that what you should do instead is go over the result and communicate to the PR author anything you think should be addressed. You don't just say "here are 8 things you might want to address but I cant actually speak to any of them."
To add to this, the fact that Claude so often tries to deviate from defined architecture can be really frustrating if you're working in a mature codebase.
That scenario would be annoying but it's not what we have. The agent joins the PR leaves a few comments and responds (with mixed success) to comments. Personally I'd go back to 2020 and never see an LLM again quite happily but that genie is out of the bottle.
Unfortunately, the results speak for themselves and I could probably find dozens of edge cases which the AI code review caught which would have otherwise been missed, probably until production.
I think there is a subtle difference between you-or-I dumping a chat paste into the PR, versus an automated agent directly commenting in a PR. The former carries a human social implication, the latter does not. The weight of them is different.
If you are talking about AI's opening PR's then maybe you have a point. But a person opening a PR should not be met with unvetted feedback.
To be absolutely clear, AI should be used for PR review. It should be used many times. By the PR author and by all the reviewers. It should not just be piped directly from the agent to the author inside the PR. That causes the author to triage every comment.
That sounds good. But it doesn't work in practice from my experience.
The exact same skill in the hands of one person will have vastly different outcomes in the hands of a different person. The review skill I built myself has been shared with folks. They (say they) use it before they put up a PR. I still catch things with the same skill. That is evolving as I catch the model(s) at BSing. Even if I would re-share it all the time, when I catch it, these other people using the same skill wouldn't catch it.
And that is exactly why building a general purpose review agent (or skill) is harder than me having my own evolving skill. If I have to "properly" release a skill/some automation, I will likely err on the side of not having too many false positives. That is harder than still relying on a human to review the AI reviewer. The same people that were really good actual human reviewers of a PR are probably the ones that are good doing the same thing while AI assisted. And the ones that really needed these other human reviewers and processes to help them be productive are probably going to produce a vibe coded mess if left to their own devices with nothing but some AI.
Have you tried running the same review skill back to back in fresh sessions? My experience has been: 1) build complicated thing with LLM, 2) run code review, 3) it finds like 8 things, 4) fix them, 5) run another code review, 6) it finds another new 8 things, rinse and repeat.
I'd guess people truly are finding things pre-review. It's just that LLM review seems to have a limit to the number of problems it can or will find. While at the same time, LLM-written code can be an almost limitless source of bugs and errors.
It has no sense of when an architecture is doomed and needs fundamental changes. Instead, it will happily continue to chase individual bugs nearly to infinity.
But, maybe your review skill is better than the ones I've tried.
With the way memory systems work, I can see the value in having a different person's AI conduct the review as that AI's 'memory' is going to have a slightly different perspective aligned with the developer piloting it
Having pilots fighting over the controls is not a situation anyone wants. The pilot monitoring saying go around should have caused an immediate reaction, the human factors behind why it didn't will probably feature prominently in the post-accident actions.
If any of the two pilots feel uncomfortable about the approach, they are actually drilled to just order a go-around, not politely ask and hint that they would prefer to do it like this FO did (wastes time). Ideally the pilot flying should then do it, but if they don't, the pilot monitoring can also take control (while clearly stating "my controls, going around") and do it. One major issue that I bet the NTSB will note in the final report is that both pilots were relatively new to the aircraft and to the airline, usually it's preferable to pair an inexperienced FO with more experienced captains.
(not an aviation expert, just summarizing various bits and pieces I gathered from various YouTubers over the last days)
Also not an expert, I wonder if there's some rule where a "Go around!" order has precedence over any other activity anyone in the cockpit wishes to perform.
As a passenger I had my first go around a few days ago, but we were 5km away from the runway.
I experienced my first go-around a few months ago, in an A321 that was landing in Tampa.
The clouds had been very thick for awhile. The plane was making those weird low-and-slow vibes that it makes on final approach.
We popped out of the clouds and there was a highway with cars! A huge parking lot! (An airport, too? Certainly, but I didn't really see a runway or any runway-adjacent stuff.) To my inexpert eyes, we just looked to be impossibly low for our location.
The folks in the cockpit apparently didn't like what they saw with their eyes, either. In an instant, the engines roared as they simultaneously pointed the thing upwards. My little pea brain was very impressed by the immediacy of the forces on my body as we disappeared back into the clouds after what was at most just several seconds of visibility.
Anyway, it was very clear that there was no hesitation to the go-around. However that decision was reached, it was then simply executed.
The next attempt went very smoothly about ten minutes later.
It totally does. Every approach briefing includes instructions on what they will do in the event of a missed or unstable approach. The procedure is generally full throttle, nose up, gear up, retract flaps, head in the direction briefed, and notify ATC. All automatic from memory.
When either pilot calls for a go-around, both are supposed to drop literally everything else, execute the go-around without delay or hesitation, and then pause to analyze the situation once ATC gives them a heading and altitude or holding pattern to regroup.
The only thing lost in a go-around is fuel and time.
Any sane airline will never punish a call to go-around if done so in good faith.
Including the complete failure of the FO to act assertively, order a go-around, and to take the controls when it was clear the captain was not responding appropriately.
If this had happened and the captain had fought over the controls and still caused an accident, we’d be having a very different conversation. The FO would be lauded as a hero who fought to save the lives of those on the ground.
> The pilot monitoring saying go around should have caused an immediate reaction
Is there evidence that PM ever called for a go around? I mean earlier, when it would have actually been possible, not 15 seconds before the end of the flight data recording.
From what I've heard, PM stated (repeatedly) that they were too high and/or too fast, and PF was not heard to respond.
The power dynamic in training is obviously very different during training where the instructor is pilot in command.
Making the assumption the PM could have taken control cleanly if the power dynamic was so poor that they weren't able to demand a go-around seems iffy, typical stabilised approach gates are 500ft in VMC, with an aircraft travelling 3nm a minute, 40 seconds before touchdown.
But as I said, the human factors involved will be a huge focus of the accident investigation.
My response was to your point about “fighting over the controls”, as if there would have been a tug of war on the yoke as the FO tried to wrest control of the plane from the captain which is nonsense.
If anything, it would have been yet one more opportunity to avert catastrophe and perform a go-around. Pilots are trained for this, and it makes less than zero sense for a PM to fail to take the controls from a PF who is flying unsafely over some imagined fear of a battle for control while the plane jostles around hurtling toward the ground. The PM is obligated to do this by every written regulation.
If you have never actually been behind the controls of an aircraft, please just stop trying to confidently assert things about this subject.
Wouldn't be a case of "if I fix it then there was nothing wrong"? How do you, as an inferior rank, step in to correct something that you think is going to happen? Imagine the inferior officer steps in and lands the plane, wouldn't the superior officer say well duh that's what I was doing why did you intervene? It's an interesting conundrum, I think, and may exacerbate the reaction or lack thereof..
This is a completely pointless debate, because even if it's true the people who currently be benefit from copyright have far more money, power and influence than any rational argument against it.
This is a even more pointless debate, because the largest-scale trampling of copyright in human history has produced several of today's hottest tech companies.
Unfortunately that one's on the operators. I can complain for days about CF, but nobody is forcing the companies to default to giving everyone a managed challenge page. Some do, because either they don't care or don't realise the extra cost.
I remember back in the days a Car Insurance website which only allowed you to use it during working hours. Never understood the mechanism, surely they weren't getting quotes live from actuaries or anything.
If I was a big AI company I'd certainly be tempted to make sure that anyone who excluded themselves from "AI training" also got themselves excluded from AI results.
reply