This is a recurring post to discuss programming or other technical projects that we've been working on. Tell us about one of your recent projects, either at work or personal projects. What's interesting about it? Are you having trouble with anything?

Have you watched any movies recently you want to discuss? Any films you want to recommend or are hyped about? Feel free to discuss anything here.

Please just try to provide fair warning of spoilers if you can.

I've found myself replying to different people about the early 2025 METR study kind of often. So I thought I'd try posting a top level thread, consider it an unsolicitied public service announcement.

You might be familiar with the study because it has been showing up alongside discussions about AI and coding for about a year. It found that LLMs actually decreased developer productivity and so people love to use it to suggest that the whole AI coding thing is really a big lie and the people who think it makes them more productive are hallucinating.

Here's the thing about that study... No one seems to have even glanced at it!

First, it's from early 2025, they used Claude Sonnet 3.5 or 3.7. Those models are no way comparable to current gen coding agents. The commonly cited inflection point didn't happen until later in 2025 with, depending on who you ask, Sonnet 4.5 or Opus 4.5

The study was comprised of 16 people! If those 16 were even vaguely representative of the developer population at the time most of them wouldn't have had significant experience with LLMs for coding.

These are not tools that just work out of the box, especially back then. It takes time and experimentation, or instruction, to use them well.

It was cool that they did the study, trying to understand LLMs was a good idea. But it's not what anyone would consider a representative, or even well thought out, study. 16 people!

But wait! They did a follow up study later in 2025.

This time with about 60 people and newer models and tools. In that study they found the opposite effect, AI tools sped developers up (which is a shock to no one who has used these tools long enough to get a feel for them). They also mentioned:

However the true speedup could be much higher among the developers and tasks which are selected out of the experiment.

In addition they had some, kind of entertaining, issues:

Due to the severity of these selection effects, we are working on changes to the design of our study.

Back to the drawing board, because:

Recruitment and retention of developers has become more difficult. An increased share of developers say they would not want to do 50% of their work without AI, even though our study pays them $50/hour to work on tasks of their own choosing. Our study is thus systematically missing developers who have the most optimistic expectations about AI’s value.

And...

Developers have become more selective in which tasks they submit. When surveyed, 30% to 50% of developers told us that they were choosing not to submit some tasks because they did not want to do them without AI. This implies we are systematically missing tasks which have high expected uplift from AI.

And so...

Together, these effects make it likely that our estimate reported above is a lower-bound on the true productivity effects of AI on these developers.

[...]

Some developers were less likely to complete tasks that they submitted if they were assigned to the AI-disallowed condition. One developer did not complete any of the tasks that were assigned to the AI-disallowed condition.

[...]

Altogether, these issues make it challenging to interpret our central estimate, and we believe it is likely a bad proxy for the real productivity impact of AI tools on these developers.

So to summarize, the new study showed a productivity increase and they estimate it's larger than the ~20% increase the study found. Cheers to them for being honest about the issues they encountered. For my part I know for sure that the increase is significantly more than 20%. The caveat, though, is that is only true after you've had some experience with the tools.

The truth is that we don't need a study for this, any experienced engineer can readily see it for themselves and you can find them talking about it pretty much everywhere. It would be interesting, though, to see a well designed study that attempted to quantify how big the average productivity increase actually is.

For that the participants using AI would need to be experienced with it and allowed to use their existing setups.

I want to add that this is not an attempt to evangelize for AI. I find the tools useful but I'm not selling anything. I'm interested in them and I stay up to date on the conversations surrounding them and the underlying technology. I use them frequently both for my own projects and to help less technical people improve their business productivity.

Whether AI agents are a good thing or not, from a larger perspective, is a very different, and complicated, conversation. The important thing is that utility and impact are two different conversations. There isn't a debate anymore about utility.

I know this probably won't stop people from continuing to derail conversations with the claim that developers are wrong about utility, but I had to try. It's just hard to let it pass by when someone claims the sky is green.

I understand that AI makes people angry and I think they have good reason to be angry. There are a lot of aspects of the AI revolution that I'm not thrilled about. The hype foremost, the FOMO as part of the hype, the potential for increased wealth consolidation really sucks, though I lay that at the feet of systems that existed before LLMs came along.

It's messy, but let's consider giving the benefit of the doubt to professionals who say a tool works instead of claiming they're wrong. Let them enjoy it. We can still be angry at AI at the same time.

I have a dentist appointment coming up. It's on April 1st, which in the US is sometimes known as April Fool's Day. Last year when I made the appointment, I was joking with them that I was going to have to play some kind of a prank since it's going to be April 1st. So I feel like I need to follow through on that, but I'm coming up short on ideas. I did some looking online, but most of the pranks are the dentist playing pranks on the patients, not the other way around. There is this one, but I'm not sure that I can pull that off. I thought I'd see if any of you Tilderitos have any ideas.

It’s spring time, and I am belatedly thinking about growing some plants. I tend to quite enjoy growing edible plants, but I might try a few flowers this year. Would be anyone else be interested in a regular gardening chat group where we can share our experiences and challenges in growing plants? Indoor, outdoor, all welcome!
I envisage something similar to the weekly minecraft threads, but less square potatoes or pixelated flowers, and something more tangible (not to knock the minecraft threads, I love them, and they are my inspiration for this!)

Picture: One Battle After Another

This became a tight race with Sinners late in the game. The obvious parallel here is 1917 and Parasite. 1917 won PGA, DGA, and BAFTA just like OBAA did. Parasite won SAG Ensemble and went on to win Picture from there.

I’m betting on OBAA being stronger than 1917. Notably 1917 was never in contention to win a Screenplay or an Acting award the way OBAA is. And OBAA is nominated in Film Editing and the front-runner in that category which 1917 missed.

I have correctly predicted every Picture winner since The Shape of Water but this is the first year where I’m in danger of losing that streak.

Director: Paul Thomas Anderson - One Battle After Another

Whether Sinners ends up winning Picture, I think this goes to PTA regardless.

Original Screenplay: Sinners

Adapted Screenplay: One Battle After Another

Lead Actor: Michael B. Jordan - Sinners

After Chalamet shot himself in the foot with his unorthodox press run for Marty Supreme, Jordan is the only one in the category going in with an industry award as the BAFTA awarded a British actor.

I think Chalamet really fucked up his chances to win for a while and will now win well into his 40s or even into his 50s. He should have played it better.

Lead Actress: Jessie Buckley - Hamnet

Supporting Actress: Amy Madigan - Weapons

After winning SAG it seems like it’s heading that way. Mosaku won the BAFTA but she had a homefield advantage. This is also an opportunity to award a veteran actress who never got her due, and will be supported by young people who enjoyed Weapons.

Supporting Actor: Sean Penn - One Battle After Another

Despite not campaigning and not appearing at the majority of the award shows (or perhaps because of that) Penn ended up winning both the SAG and BAFTA. Essentially sleepwalking to his third Oscar.

Original Score: Sinners

Original Song: Golden from KPop Demon Hunters

Sound: F1

Casting: Sinners

Production Design: Frankenstein

Cinematography: One Battle After Another

Sinners was originally the front-runner and would have made history as the first female cinematographer to win. However it lost both the ASC and BAFTA for Cinematography.

Makeup and Hairstyling: Frankenstein

Costume Design: Frankenstein

Film Editing: One Battle After Another

Sinners won the ACE Drama awards and OBAA won the ACE Comedy award. This category used to be correlated with Sound but since the sound categories were merged it has now correlated with Picture.

VFX: Avatar: Fire and Ash

Animated Feature: KPop Demon Hunters

Documentary Feature: The Perfect Neighbor

International Feature: Sentimental Value

I have a bare bones prototype of a game made in twine and I will be honest it needs a lot of work.

The story and main architecture of the game is already planned and I am happy with it. It is the story hooks and pathing that I am looking to improve and for that I would like to give out a early Alpha build for volunteers to critique and provide any dead ends, errors and story beats they find engaging.

Please feel free to send a message if you would like to participate. Thank you for your time.

Edit: Thank you for your interest in the game the final build should be ready for volunteers in one week. I will send links to you directly at that time. Thank you again for your interest this is much better than I hoped for.

Server host: tildes.nore.gg (Running Java 1.21.11)
Verification site: https://tildes.nore.gg
BlueMap: https://tildes.nore.gg/map/
Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/TildesMC

The server operates on a soft whitelist. Anyone can log in and walk around, but you need a Tildes account to gain build access.

We recommend you install our mod web-chat so that you can chat while in your web browser. It turns the server into an old-school chat room.

<- Previous Thread - Next Thread ->

Has anyone solved the Wordle at wordleunlimited.org today? I just got the answer on my first try, which seems unlikely to say the least. I think it could be a malfunction. Would anyone mind posting the answer under a spoiler box so I can check? Thanks!

Update: Thanks, folks! It seems like the site uses a different word for each person. It also seems like it's working fine. So, go me! Or it was a one-off problem. My word was AUDIT, btw.

TLDR/Warning: this might be a tedious read. But I'm curious if I could have gone about rating my albums better.

I tend to simply either favourite an album or not. The idea of giving albums and tracks marks out of five stars seems tedious, difficult to match to how I feel and just doesn't match how my head works. But my collection has grown over the decades and I've been bed bound a lot lately, so I'm trying to organise/categorise based on my feelings towards the albums rather than genre. I'm also hoping to rejuvenate my old interest in music (playing in a band and recording for a living took the shine off of casual listening for me). I thought it would be an interesting experiment to try out, so I rated songs from over 50 albums.

I came up with a rigid and hopefully balanced definition for each rating:

• 1 star - Dislike. I hope I never hear this song again (but I'll keep it purely because it's part of the album)
• 2 stars - Neutral. It doesn't annoy me, but it's too generic to be interesting
• 3 stars - Sometimes this song hits the spot.
• 4 stars - This song usually hits the spot.
• 5 stars - This song always hits the spot.

Then I rate the album out of five stars based on the average of the song ratings. The result is that no albums got 5 stars, a seven got 4 stars, the vast majority of albums are rated at 3 or 2 stars. Even among the 3-star albums, some I like much more than others depending on whether they contain mostly consistent 3-star songs or half 4-star songs and half 2-star songs.

I wonder if the lack of 5-star albums is because of the definitions I gave each of the 1-5-star possibilities. For example, I don't know if any song "always hits the spot". Or maybe it's just that I'm not as into my music as I used to be.

Anyway, I thought maybe people interested in music and data might have thoughts on going about this differently. It's worth asking before I do the next 1,000 albums :) Maybe you'd define each of the 5 stars differently. Any takers?

Edit: thanks to everyone for reading all this and commenting their thoughts. I have a system I'm happy with now, but always happy to continue to chat with fellow (and reluctant) pedants about this.