I want to press the blue button but I also want those who pressed the red button to die :).

The guy is clearly an obsessive hyper-perfectionist- he's telling (or boasting) of taking a culinary obsession from reproducing fine-dining dishes (when most people are content mastering a few decent recipes) to building automates curing chambers and butchering whole animals. It's kind of obvious that this personality leads from any random objective to into the deepest of the rabbit holes where everything is studied and annotated with the utmost precision. Funny as a clinical case, not sure I'd like to be around someone like this though :)

Point is that sub-millimeter precision when measuring rings is doing absolutely nothing to further his shooting skills to take down a tasty deer. To the contrary. Time is limited, and every minute spent perfecting this automation was not spent improving shooting skills by, you know, shooting. In other words, this may well have made him a worse shooter than he could have been. Nothing wrong with it, but let's call it for what it is.

A perfectionist defines a goal and then finds the perfect path to get there. He was just giving in to distractions and "perfectionist" is the wrong label.

It's not about submillimetre precision (OP here), it's about knowing if you can shoot well. The most common deer stalking certification in the UK (DSC1) involves three shooting tests from 20, 70, and 100m - if I don't care about 8/10 vs 9/10 shots from 25 yards, there is no way I am putting a shot within a 4" circle from 100 metres.

> every minute spent perfecting this automation was not spent improving shooting skills by, you know, shooting

I mention in the post that I had access to the range only 1-2 evenings a week, so there was no way I could improve my skills outside of these few hours.

Thanks for joining the discussion!

> if I don't care about 8/10 vs 9/10 shots from 25 yards, there is no way I am putting a shot within a 4" circle from 100 metres.

Totally with you there. Though isn't what counts in the end how close you were to the center? If you look with your eyes and it looks like it was in the 3rd ring, what does it matter whether it "technically" wasn't because half a millimeter was in the next ring? It was surely much better shot than fully in the next one, unless you actually want to go to the olympics or are otherwise competing in the sport.

Don't get me wrong, I totally respect the challenge of automating the counting but that this actually helped your progress still seems doubtful to me.

> I mention in the post that I had access to the range only 1-2 evenings a week, so there was no way I could improve my skills outside of these few hours

Ok, fair. Though we can surely agree that even though the automation-building that you did during all this extra time improved your skills, it was coding skills rather than shooting skills? (Which, again, is fantastic!)

No but I can sense the movement, I think it's already reached the level of intelligence that draws it towards futurism or cubism /s

I wonder if at this point you could just ask the agent to iteratively refine the image in smaller portions.

I'll bite: no I don't think so. If the examples are not cherry-picked and by "image model" we mean just the ability to generate pictures, this looks like parity with human excellence, there isn't much space for further improvement. The images don't just look real, they look tasteful- the model is not just generating a credible image, it's generating one that shows the talent of a good photographer/ designer/ artist.

If I understand it correctly, this is based on the "RYS" architecture (or findings) by David Ng? ( https://dnhkng.github.io/posts/rys/ )

And, related: if there are small subsets of layers that can be looped inside LLMs to improve their reasoning, and if the layers to loop change depending on the competencies used by the LLM in that particular context, has anyone yet tried to build and train an LLM that can decide which layers to loop and how much?

Yeah RYS is basically a no training way to test this idea

AI isn't a technology that replaces programmers, it's a technology that replaces generic human beings. The manager of your agents will be an agent, too.

Why average? I've always taken pride in my work and developed things that went beyond the expectations of the management and of the final users. Now I'm using LLMs a lot and I've been able to do much more than I used to- I find them great coworkers, technically very knowledgeable, patient and fast. I provide the big picture, keep an eye on the architectural soundness and code quality, and design the features. The LLM does the rest. The results are way above average.

Just want to add this is my experience as well. Just solid coworkers. Of course they mess up sometimes, but easier to fix up than with humans and their politic and egos. I find I can actually reason for once instead of always fighting and deferring to whomever has The Biggest Opinion and not rarely just the loudest voice.

I think many people here work at nice, large places with reasonable and knowledgeable colleagues that are cooperative and mostly rational and try to do the right thing. In my experience that is not a common or widespread thing. Of course I only have small to medium business experience, but that's still a pretty good chunk of the economy. LLMs are an absurd, ridiculous win in those kinds of environments.

Nobody cares

High on his own supply.