[win311fwg]

In the context of an LLM using "gate" within code: obviously one can always modify the code to bypass the gate, so there is a built-in implicit assumption that the gate isn't "impossible lava". Most readers are able to read between the lines, but you cannot serve everyone.

[ssl-3]

That's not how the bot uses the word, though -- at least in my experience. The bot uses "gate" to describe a thing that only blocks, and can never open.

[win311fwg]

Code that never opens is code you can delete. If the bot hasn't deleted dead code, especially given that this is code it recognizes as being dead and documents it as such, it must believe that you plan to use it again someday. That would imply an expectation of the gate opening eventually, even if not immediately.

[ssl-3]

Your description of this thing differs from my observation of the reality that I participate in.

Perhaps we're holding it differently.

[win311fwg]

Like all code discussions on HN, we have never been given the code to hold.

I understand in the past HN accounts have been afraid to post code because it would reveal that they have no idea what they are doing, but now that we have the plausible deniability of "look at this stupid thing an LLM wrote!" it is curious the mindset persists. Old habits die hard, I suppose.

[ssl-3]

I didn't realize that I was on trial and that there was a requirement that I back up my personal anecdotes and observations with working examples to prove their worth.

In reality, there's no reason for me to do so, because I'm not on trial here at all. Please keep your accusations to yourself, comrade.

My willingness to prove to you that a bot uses a word in a strange way is approximately zero.

Have a great day!

[win311fwg]

Logically there is never an expectation for one to comment for anyone but themselves, but it remains that nobody can hold something that has never been given to them.