https://github.com/google/paranoid_crypto

> The goal is to increase the confidence in cryptography use cases inside and outside Google. With Paranoid, any cryptographic artifact can be tested, but its primary motivation is to detect the usage of weak third party hardware or software black boxes.

So google didn't use their own paranoid_crypto lib to check the key before adding it to the Chrome trusted certs.

They do? Internet is filled with people complaining about it

It's been decades since beating the best computer at chess was possible. But people still play, because they find it fun to get better at.

The major difference being that winning a chess game doesn't yield a permanent artifact that is useful, generally.

It's fine this person wants to journal about the things they do privately for fun. They clearly aren't writing for others to read their work.

Good for him but I don't think that justifies such a snooty position.

I will agree that it kinda sucks not being able to claim credit for your work. I've vibe coded or vibe finished several apps now that are extremely impressive, better than the existing alternatives. But I feel weird saying "I made this" because it feels like I barely did anything.

Let's talk about being "confidently wrong." I don't know if the original author is reading comments here, but if so: how long has it been since you had the experience above?

Have you noticed it happens less and less often as time goes on? And that the models take less time and fewer trials to "get there in the end?"

Because the rate of change is the important part, not the state of the art at the particular moment in time when you formed your opinion.

>

> i don't know how more people don't experience this, but staring at an llms output be confidently wrong eventually to get there in the process, or looking at the commands its running and see some really stupid things its doing drives me crazy to the point i will just stop it before it answers, i cannot handle something being that confidently wrong (even though it'll probably still get there in the end)

When people say stuff like this, that they've used LLMs before and hated it, and then list off a bunch of stuff about how they're confidently wrong and all this other stuff, my only question is when? When was the last time that they used an LLM? three months ago, six months ago, one year ago, two years ago?

The people I work with outsourcing their thinking to LLMs are struggling, and if I'm not careful they're creating more work for me in review and feedback. The people I work with outsourcing their codebases entirely to LLMs are producing some of the worst software I have ever used.

The core piece of this blog post is that the author doesn’t use LLMs for fun work because they do the fun work to have fun. Okay. Nothing new there. I some times grow vegetables myself and eat them instead of buying them from the store because I think it’s fun. I don’t feel the need to go around sneering at people who offloaded all of their vegetable growing to someone else. I also don’t like associating with people who get smugly superior and condescending about their personal gardening.

In fact, even though I enjoy gardening and nerding out about it, I don’t like talking to the gardening snobs who have turned it into a part of their personality and who think it makes them superior to the lowly people who don’t garden.

And that’s the exact vibe I get from the articles like this, where the topic drifts into virtue signaling and criticizing the LLM users.

There have been an exhausting supply of these articles for the past few years, and there’s frequently a section like this in each of them:

> i truly have tried to use llms before, just to try it out. nothing i was going to publish as research, but i really couldn't and it left me never wanting to use an llm again

I won’t judge anybody for not using LLMs or for using LLMs for their fun work. Do whatever you want for fun! Don’t let virtue signaling posts like this one shame you into thinking there’s a right way or wrong way to enjoy your fun project time.

That said, I find that to get good discussion about the pros and cons of AI on our thinking you have to look beyond these people who just don’t get LLMs at all. You can’t really understand this topic until you’ve seen both sides.

I wouldn’t find it interesting to read an article on this topic from someone who never learned to program but only uses LLMs to write code because they do not understand the other side. Imagine seeing “I tried to learn how to code once but it didn’t really click for me. It left me never wanting to write code again.” Then they went on to talk about the brilliance of vibecoding with some collected examples of hand-written code causing problems. This article is essentially that, but from the other perspective.