breuleux

10 ms·

121.
by breuleux 1y ago
Sustained exponential growth doesn't really exist in reality. It's usually sigmoidal: rapid, explosive growth until it tapers off and ends in an S shape. There are good physical reasons for this.
122.
Ovld – Efficient and featureful multiple dispatch for Python(github.com)
113 points by breuleux 1y ago|46 comments
123.
by breuleux 1y ago
> predictability itself is limited by chaos, so maybe in the end that is the limiting factor I feel much of humanity's effectiveness comes from ablating the complexity of the world to make it more predictable and easier to plan arou
124.
by breuleux 1y ago
The service economy will collapse, finance as a whole will collapse, but whoever controls the actual physical land and resources doesn't actually need any of that stuff and will thrive immensely. We would end up with either an oligarch
125.
by breuleux 1y ago
> Arguably LLMs are probably enabling some web developers to create native applications rather than Electron monstrosities saving many P-core CPU cycles multiplied by the number of their users. Does any such project exist, or are develop
126.
by breuleux 1y ago
> Surely, like everything else in tech, this too shall pass. I expect power requirements to fall away since there is no doubt strong incentives to do so. Halving power requirements is only a net gain if demand isn't doubled. Unfortu
127.
by breuleux 1y ago
You have to start the accounting immediately, because once a technology becomes entrenched, it's very difficult to backtrack. If it spins out of control and half of all energy is sunk into AI because half of services depend on it and w
128.
by breuleux 1y ago
> I've been contested that the second Gödel incompleteness theorem "can't be applied like this to the brain" but I stubbornly insist yes, the brain implements _some_ formal system and it can't understand how that
129.
by breuleux 1y ago
> As long as we don’t have ranked choice voting ... we will continue to vote in the servants of the billionaire class. I don't think RCV would do much to change that. In order to be elected, you need to be seen, so you need a sizeab
130.
by breuleux 1y ago
I have that worry as well, but it may not be as bad as I feared. I am currently developing a Python serialization/deserialization library based on advanced multiple dispatch, so it is fairly different from how existing libraries work.
131.
by breuleux 2y ago
> not needing html() around nested template could be nice One possibility would be to define __and__ on html so that you can write e.g. html&t"<b>{x}</b>" (or whichever operator looks the best).
132.
by breuleux 2y ago
Just going to throw my own (old) attempt in here. - Liso ( http://breuleux.net/blog/liso.html )
133.
by breuleux 2y ago
A while back I had made my own alternative to s-exprs that works with Racket. I have no idea if it still works, but I still think it looks nice, and at a glance I feel it's "purer" than shrubbery: http://breuleux.n
134.
by breuleux 2y ago
The issue I have with the view from the outside is that it risks leading to a rather anthropomorphic notion of free will, if the criterion boils down to that an entity can only have free will if we can't predict its behavior. I'm
135.
by breuleux 2y ago
> Humans could have free will in the same sense, that you can't predict what they are doing, without actually simulating them. I think it's a good point, but I would argue it's even more direct than that. Humans themselve
136.
by breuleux 2y ago
I wasn't making an atheistic argument. I'm saying that if God exists and is the infinite creator of everything, it's suspiciously convenient that he also happens to be interested in human affairs. Why does theism have to go
137.
by breuleux 2y ago
> You seem to think that your mind and the mind of God are similar, How come? You think I'm saying that the infinite creator of the universe is unlikely to care about the fate or well-being of humans because... I wouldn't if I
138.
by breuleux 2y ago
> However, it is not AI that is ultimately deified and worshipped, but humanity itself---which, in this way, becomes enslaved to its own work. Doesn't that describe all religion? I mean, you're telling me that the infinite crea
139.
by breuleux 2y ago
Rich people currently have little trouble controlling people who are much smarter and more capable than they are. Controlling resources and capital goes a long way and it isn't a given that AGI would transcend that dynamic.
140.
by breuleux 2y ago
It stands that humans will make the difference if they can do things that the AI cannot. The more capable the AI gets, however, the less humans will meet that threshold, and they are the ones that will lose out. Capital, on the other hand
141.
by breuleux 2y ago
The value of our labour is what enables us to acquire things and property, with which we can live and do stuff. If your labour is valueless because robots can do anything you can do better, how do you get any of the possessions you require
142.
by breuleux 2y ago
In the past, human workers were displaced. The value of their labour for certain tasks became lower than what automation could achieve, but they could still find other things to do to earn a living. What people are worrying about here is wh
143.
by breuleux 2y ago
What value do you bring to the venture, though? What makes your venture more likely to succeed than anybody else's, if the barrier is that low? I mean, I'll tell you: if anyone can spend $100 to design the same new gadget, the w
144.
by breuleux 2y ago
I spend most of my time thinking about what I'm trying to do and how to best achieve it, so code completion can only make me marginally more productive. If the tool can guess a large chunk of what I've decided to do, sure, that&#x
145.
by breuleux 2y ago
I was trying to figure out how to set up a pyproject with uv that could support cuda, rocm and other device types this morning, and next thing I knew, there was a new release adding pretty much exactly what I needed. The pace of development
146.
by breuleux 2y ago
I liked Microsoft Academic far better, if only because it actually had an API.
147.
by breuleux 2y ago
It would be nice if some AI tools could be developed to actually evaluate new libraries and frameworks. For instance, if there are already 10 libraries to do something and I develop a new one that's objectively faster than all of the
148.
by breuleux 2y ago
Well of course, but I don't think that would necessarily help much. The point is that you don't really need to do anything: you know what the results should be, and you know you are unlikely to get pushback, so there's only
149.
by breuleux 2y ago
I'd be careful about that. Faking replications is even easier than faking research, so if you place a lot of importance on them, expect the rate of fraud in replication studies to explode. This is a very difficult problem to solve.
150.
by breuleux 2y ago
There would still be incentives for collusion (I "reproduce" your research, you "reproduce" mine), and researchers pretending to reproduce papers but actually not bothering (especially if they believe that the original r

More ›