breuleux

6 ms·

31.
by breuleux 3mo ago
Yeah... savage capitalism will ruin this too :'(
32.
by breuleux 3mo ago
> even though I have faster models available I still go to Fable or GPT-5.6 90% of the time What about all the things you don't currently use an LLM for? If a specialized chip can run a model 100 times faster, you can suddenly use
33.
by breuleux 3mo ago
Part of the issue with "shipping" AI-generated code is, what's the value of shipping something that your prospective customers could just make for themselves? Shipping a product used to be the gold standard of value, but I&#x
34.
by breuleux 3mo ago
Maybe, maybe not. The point is that you can't simply will energy into existence. Its availability, including the ease of exploitation, is a physical given. Which is true of resources in general. Arbitrarily advanced technology can&#x27
35.
by breuleux 3mo ago
> I'm assuming also, anything like a paper with data, can also be questioned in the same way. Don't object, I've seen that done. Unless you've seen me do it, I don't see why I can't object. What a strange
36.
by breuleux 3mo ago
> I didn't mean to include science fiction authors, or extreme futurists. Science fiction authors are quite influential, and I don't think they were the only ones either. I expect that plenty of actual scientists had similar vi
37.
by breuleux 3mo ago
> We have advanced tremendously over the past 200 years Would most of that have happened if we hadn't found oil, though? It's difficult to precisely identify how much of progress is owed to intelligence, and how much is simply
38.
by breuleux 3mo ago
> Literally, things everyone said would take 30 or 100 years, happen within months. "Everyone"? Plenty of people in the 50s said we'd have sentient humanoid robots before the year 2000. And flying cars. Sure, many people u
39.
by breuleux 3mo ago
I mean, unironically, yeah. If you want flavor, just mix jam in your plain yogurt.
40.
by breuleux 3mo ago
I just see it as a way to highlight the absurdity. They're heavily implying they won't buy books on Amazon anymore in the next paragraph: > So it looks as though this move — both mean-spirited and commercially incompetent — wil
41.
by breuleux 3mo ago
I don't think there's good evidence that it directly jumps to truth. The aim of betting on a prediction market is to earn money. This incentivizes you to bet on whatever you believe is the most profitable, which is disproportionat
42.
by breuleux 3mo ago
> unless you control the stack down to the hardware, it's basically a one way ticket to eternal slavery Only if mind uploads are economically viable, which I doubt they ever will be. Organic brains are very efficient machines and it
43.
by breuleux 4mo ago
> Our biology is ridiculously optimized. Like 6-7 orders of magnitude more energy efficient than current day AI/computation stack. It's plausible that AI can never outperform us at what we do best because we are already at the
44.
by breuleux 4mo ago
I suppose. I think it depends on your tooling somewhat. I mean, looking at the feature article, Bonsai lets you define TUI elements with an HTML-inspired syntax -- so if you're using that, it's a similar difficulty as writing a we
45.
by breuleux 4mo ago
> and then there's just TUIs, which look retrocool and run blazing fast, and are really easy to write I mean, I don't even think that's true. Many TUIs are bloated, dogshit slow, and it's not trivial to write complex
46.
by breuleux 4mo ago
The point is more that you can well imagine a future where AI is both better and cheaper than humans at basically all types of work, leading to a situation where we would be entirely unable to fight back in the eventuality that machine owne
47.
by breuleux 4mo ago
Note that several of your historical examples didn’t involve humans, and presumably most future occurrences of better work enablers won’t involve humans either. The contention isn’t whether there will be an increase in diversity and amount
48.
by breuleux 5mo ago
People who use AI set the bar themselves when they claim they generate "very high quality work using Claude". Humans more rarely make such claims about the code they write themselves, but when they do, I expect they face similar s
49.
by breuleux 5mo ago
> They launch fast, run fast, and you use them fast. I don't know about that. The Gemini TUI takes like four full seconds to start on my machine. I have no idea what the hell it's doing. A lot of the fancy new TUIs that are com
50.
by breuleux 6mo ago
> How may entropy be reversed? Considering AC could persist indefinitely in hyperspace while interacting with normal matter, the answer would appear to be "hyperspace", whatever that is.
51.
by breuleux 6mo ago
> A bit like how using "Bruxelles" in a comment about the EU is a giveaway that your British and/or a (former?) brexiteer. "Bruxelles" is the official French spelling, and French is the city's most spoken la
52.
by breuleux 7mo ago
And my take! A fork of fish where any command that starts with > or a capital letter is fed to $fish_llm_command: https://github.com/breuleux/fish-shell . With Claude's help, that took all of 30 minutes to make.
53.
by breuleux 8mo ago
I don’t tidy up very often, but when I do, it doesn’t take much time or energy. I just dump everything that isn’t version controlled into a junk folder, and it feels great.
54.
by breuleux 8mo ago
It's generally easier to make such a process tamper-proof than an election. You can pick a cryptographically secure open source PRNG and determine the seed in a decentralized way by allowing anyone to contribute a salt into a list whic
55.
by breuleux 8mo ago
> It's easier for a small number of people to coordinate, than a large number. That's basically my main argument for replacing election-based democracy by lottery-based democracy. Electing the right representatives is a coordin
56.
by breuleux 8mo ago
If the government doesn't have enough power, the wealthy won't need to bribe politicians to do their bidding. They will do their own bidding directly, and there will be nobody to stop them. It's like, if you want to sell your
57.
by breuleux 8mo ago
In the case of LLMs, "prediction" is overselling it somewhat. They are token sequence generators. Calling these sequences "predictions" vaguely corresponds to our own intent with respect to training these machines, becau
58.
by breuleux 8mo ago
The point is that "predicting the next token" is such a general mechanism as to be meaningless. We say that LLMs are "just" predicting the next token, as if this somehow explained all there was to them. It doesn't,
59.
by breuleux 8mo ago
> These feel like they involve something beyond "predict the next token really well, with a reasoning trace." I don't think there's anything you can't do by "predicting the next token really well". It
60.
by breuleux 8mo ago
> Simplicity comes from strong definitions Sure, you can put it this way, with the caveat that reality at large isn't strongly definable. You can sort of see this with good engineering: half of it is strongly defining a system simpl

More ›