DonaldPShimoda

8 ms·

61.
by DonaldPShimoda 11mo ago
I'm not sure which parent comment you're referring to, but what you're saying aligns with my point a couple levels up: reasonable regulation of the companies building these tools is a way to mitigate harm without directly enc
62.
by DonaldPShimoda 11mo ago
I don't know how to interpret this. Are you suggesting I'm, like, an agent of some organization? Or is "activist" meant only as a pejorative? I can't say that I identify as any sort of AI "activist" per se
63.
by DonaldPShimoda 11mo ago
Yes. My position is that it was irresponsible to publish these tools before figuring out safety first, and it is irresponsible to continue to offer LLMs that have been trained in an authoritative voice and to not actively seek to educate pe
64.
by DonaldPShimoda 11mo ago
I disagree with your premise entirely and, frankly, I think it's ridiculous. I don't think you need to foresee all possible consequences to take action against what is likely , especially when you have evidence of active harm rea
65.
by DonaldPShimoda 11mo ago
At the very least, I think there is a need for oversight of how companies building LLMs market and train their models. It's not enough to cross our fingers that they'll add "safeguards" to try to detect certain phrases&#
66.
by DonaldPShimoda 11mo ago
...nobody? I didn't determine any such thing. What I was saying was that LLMs are dangerous and we should treat them as such, even if that means not giving them some functionality that some people "want". This has nothing to
67.
by DonaldPShimoda 11mo ago
I'm not saying they're equivalent; I'm saying that they're both dangerous, and I think taking the position that we shouldn't take any steps to prevent the danger because some people may end up thinking they "wa
68.
by DonaldPShimoda 11mo ago
This is like arguing that we shouldn't try to regulate drugs because some people might "want" the heroin that ruins their lives. The existing "personalities" of LLMs are dangerous, full stop. They are trained to gen
69.
by DonaldPShimoda 11mo ago
I'm desperately looking forward to, like, 5-10 years from now when all the "LLMs are going to change everything!!1!" comments have all but completely abated (not unlike the blockchain stuff of ~10 years ago). No, LLMs are not
70.
by DonaldPShimoda 11mo ago
The tone of the parent comment suggests they were writing in jest and are aware that "CSS-only" includes HTML.
71.
by DonaldPShimoda 1y ago
It's not a "belief"; that's what computability is . This definition is the whole point of the work by Church and Turing that resulted in the lambda calculus and the Turing machine, respectively.
72.
by DonaldPShimoda 1y ago
Well, I did post my comment last week when "next week" was accurate. ;) But thanks for linking the program!
73.
by DonaldPShimoda 1y ago
In my experience, the majority of negative responses are rooted in fundamental misunderstandings of type systems and expressive power. The vast majority of everyday programmers are pretty much only familiar with Java or TypeScript when it c
74.
by DonaldPShimoda 1y ago
Research takes some time, both to do but also to publish. In my area (programming languages), we have 4 major conferences a year, each with like a 6-to-8-month lag-time between submission and publication, assuming the submission is accepted
75.
by DonaldPShimoda 1y ago
No worries, just wanted to clarify to make sure my response was on-topic!
76.
by DonaldPShimoda 1y ago
If you hang around certain spaces of the internet (here, Reddit, etc), any sufficiently popular post about a Rust-related project is bound to accrue some comments along the lines of "Rust is actually not that great", "rewriti
77.
by DonaldPShimoda 1y ago
By "it" do you mean delimited continuations? If so, my understanding is that they are the standard mode of interruption in Racket — all error-raising/handling and other continuation forms (call/cc, etc) are implemented i
78.
by DonaldPShimoda 1y ago
So worth the watch. The list of novel contributions outlined in the demonstration is incredibly impressive, but you also have to include the developments that went into making the presentation itself. For example, high-speed modems were dev
79.
by DonaldPShimoda 1y ago
> I'm glad I don't see [problems with using technology trained on stolen material, which consumes resources exorbitantly and disproportionately affects people in poorer areas, in the name of generating soulless, "easier-
80.
by DonaldPShimoda 1y ago
> there's no shame in asking ChatGPT to gussy it up Strongly disagree; there is plenty of shame in using LLMs to "improve" writing.
81.
by DonaldPShimoda 1y ago
A Turing machine is not a real device; I suggest reading the Wikipedia article on abstract machines [0], which says verbatim: "Turing machines, for example, are some of the most fundamental abstract machines in computer science."
82.
by DonaldPShimoda 1y ago
> You could do this with the C abstract machine. I don't think there is a "C abstract machine". I think there are some, like, minimal versions of C (there's probably a Featherweight C out there or something), but th
83.
by DonaldPShimoda 1y ago
> If you were say, writing a programming language, it would be nice to understand the fundamentals. I work in programming languages research. Nobody uses Turing machines for anything. We do talk about decidability when it comes to certai
84.
by DonaldPShimoda 1y ago
> Definitely not necessary for programming but it's not some completely theoretical mumbo jumbo. While I'm a big fan of teaching theory, I regret to inform you that the Turing machine is kind of completely theoretical mumbo j
85.
by DonaldPShimoda 1y ago
> One of the biggest boost to my SWE career was studying theory of computation and programming languages theory. I totally agree with you. > My major was electronic engineering, so I didn't touch those at the university. Unfortun
86.
by DonaldPShimoda 2y ago
"The models might become viable at some point" is very different from the original claim at the top level of this comment chain, though, which made a positive assertion that agent-based models are better. The parent comment to y
87.
by DonaldPShimoda 2y ago
Sure thing. Cheers!
88.
by DonaldPShimoda 2y ago
This is a really minor point, but "strongly typed" and "statically typed" are not interchangeable terms. In the context of your comments here, you are exclusively interested in the static nature of the type system, rathe
89.
by DonaldPShimoda 2y ago
> The technology to really convert industrial-grade apps from C to Rust could probably bullet proof the C apps more easily. No, some C programs cannot be made safe. This can be due to dependency on undefined or unspecified behaviors, or
90.
by DonaldPShimoda 2y ago
> Rust isn't a "replacement for C" Hmm I think to clarify I would say that Rust _is_ intended as a replacement for C in general, but that this isn't how the Linux kernel developers are choosing to use it. As for why t

More ›