What I'm asking really is what is the benefit of TS if we could use decent and improving coding AIs to help us code in Rust, even if we are new to it, or never used it, and compile to WASM. Much faster execution per my experience. I mean not even comparable.
I do all my work in Rust now via o3-mini-high and convert to WASM... JS just for DOM and event handling. What is the point of building these CPU-bound functions in TS. Why not Rust->WASM?
My view is that those who designed CSS suck when it comes to designing intuitive systems.
I would not advocate constraint solvers, in the future I hope ViTs are so cheap to run that they can infer the right layout of things at any orientation and size in single digit milliseconds, solving the layout problem for good =)
Read the reasoning after clicking in the stats or swipe to next page and click on the donuts. For in-house legal teams not for mobile users. Read the statements and reasoning. Tell me if the reasoning is wrong. One of the top 100 lawyers in US looked at it and told us he likes how it balances the intent of the law and no gripes with reasoning. Not using a reasoning model unde the hood. We built one for legal. It means that gen AI is useful and LLMs can be made to reason with inference time scaling. It’s not rocket science but also not easy. What hype? We think gen AI is actually under hyped.
This is all BS tbh. People don’t know how to use the current gen AI take to do very useful reasoning.
I keep posting our work as an example and NO ONE here (Old HN is dead) has managed to point out any reasoning issues (we redacted the in-between thinking most recently like the thinking traces that people were treating as the final answer)
I dare you to tell me this is not useful when we are signing up customers daily for trial:
I found Gaussian Processes with the right kernel to be very powerful with even just a few data points and a very small set of parameters. I don't know if I was using it correctly tbh, but it worked out great in predicting values that I could not predict so accurately. I used it as a predictable yet non-linear process to tweak the input in a computer vision task. The proof was literally in the pudding.
The sensitivity can be turned up or down. It's why we are asking for input. If you're talking about the Disney EULA, it has the context that it is a browsewrap agreement. The setting for material omission is very greedy right now, and we could find a happy middle.
A former attorney general is taking it for a spin, and has said great things about it so far. One of the top 100 lawyers in the US. HN has turned into a pit of hate. WTF all this hate for? People just really angry at AI, it seems. JFC, Grow up.
LLMs don't reason the way we do, but there are similarities at the cognitive pre-conscious level.
I made a challenge to various lawyers and the Stanford Codex (no one took the bait yet) to find critical mistakes in the "reasoning" of our Legal AI. One former attorney general told us that he likes how it balances the intent of the law. Sample output (scroll and click on stats and the donuts on the second slide):
I built the AI using an inference-time=scaling approach that I evolved over a year's time, and it is based on Llama for now, but could be replace with any major foundational model.
I built this AI tool to spot "bugs" in legal agreements, which is harder than spotting errors in research papers because the law is open textured and self contradicting in many places. But no one seems to care about it on HN, Gladly, our early trial customers are really blown away by it.