3 ms·

... it is not "us" .. there is a collection of roles that each interact to produce products to market or releases. Add some game-theory to the thinking on that?

godelski 2y ago
"Us" can mean different things depending on the context. The context here is "programmers" not "shitty programmers" (really we can be inclusive with engineers and any makers). Considering that it seems you appear to understand the context I'm a bit confused at the comment. You don't have to inject yourself if you're not in the referred to group (i.e. maybe I'm not talking about you. I can't know because I don't even know you) I need to stress so much -- especially because how people think about AI and intelligence (my field of research[0]) -- that language is not precise. Language is not thoughts. Sure, many think "out loud" and most people have inner speech, but language (even inner) is compressed. You use language to convey much more complex and abstract concepts in your head to someone who is hopefully trying to make their decompression adapt to uncover the other person's intended meaning. This isn't a Chinese room where you just look in the dictionary (which also shows multiple definitions for anything). I know it's harder with text and disconnected cultures integration, but we must not confuse this and I think it's ignored far too often. Ignoring it seems to just escalate that problems. > Add some game-theory to the thinking on that? And please don't be dismissive by hand waving. I'm sure you understand game theory. Which would mean you understand what a complex problem this is to actually model (to a degree I doubt anyone could to a good degree of accuracy). That you understand perturbation theory and chaos theory and how they are critical to modeling such a process meaning you only get probability distribution as results. [0] I add this context because it decreases the amount of people that feel the need to nerdsplain things to me that they don't research.

godelski 2y ago

"Us" can mean different things depending on the context. The context here is "programmers" not "shitty programmers" (really we can be inclusive with engineers and any makers). Considering that it seems you appear to understand the context I'm a bit confused at the comment. You don't have to inject yourself if you're not in the referred to group (i.e. maybe I'm not talking about you. I can't know because I don't even know you) I need to stress so much -- especially because how people think about AI and intelligence (my field of research[0]) -- that language is not precise. Language is not thoughts. Sure, many think "out loud" and most people have inner speech, but language (even inner) is compressed. You use language to convey much more complex and abstract concepts in your head to someone who is hopefully trying to make their decompression adapt to uncover the other person's intended meaning. This isn't a Chinese room where you just look in the dictionary (which also shows multiple definitions for anything). I know it's harder with text and disconnected cultures integration, but we must not confuse this and I think it's ignored far too often. Ignoring it seems to just escalate that problems. > Add some game-theory to the thinking on that? And please don't be dismissive by hand waving. I'm sure you understand game theory. Which would mean you understand what a complex problem this is to actually model (to a degree I doubt anyone could to a good degree of accuracy). That you understand perturbation theory and chaos theory and how they are critical to modeling such a process meaning you only get probability distribution as results. [0] I add this context because it decreases the amount of people that feel the need to nerdsplain things to me that they don't research.