dpark

25 ms·

391.
by dpark 6mo ago
It wasn’t my analogy. It was the article’s so I responded to that. There are many more (and better) examples of how abstractions give up control, precision, and/or determinism. > The high level language defines it's own level
392.
by dpark 6mo ago
Depends on what you mean. Assuming you write code that does not take advantage of undefined behavior, then in general you would expect the correctness of your program to be consistent. But you would not expect the performance, for example,
393.
by dpark 6mo ago
Mostly because the behavior is implementation defined. So long as the behavior meets the contract, the compiler/interpreter is free to do whatever it wants. Python could certainly optimize repeated code paths to make them more efficien
394.
by dpark 6mo ago
> I find it hard to believe that there is a demographic of people that were yearning to write code, but simply could not because they lacked LLMs. Is it the price? Yes, because the price is measured in time. With LLM tooling I’ve churn
395.
by dpark 6mo ago
This is vapid condescension. The comment you replied to made no statements about math or proofs. They made a statement about working in systems of non determinism effectively. Your statement seems to imply that this is dumb, as if working i
396.
by dpark 6mo ago
“ Each move from one layer of the tech stack to a higher one involved a function: f(x) -> y Given a specific x, you always get a specific y as the artifact being generated. ” Not at all. If this were true then the Python code i
397.
by dpark 6mo ago
Lots of evidence for the Sun. Less so Ra.
398.
by dpark 6mo ago
I must have missed your earlier link. Eliza did not disprove the Turing test, though. What it showed is that it’s easy to pass a very scoped test that doesn’t allow the user to actually broach general topics. Anyone communicating with Eliza
399.
by dpark 6mo ago
Could you do it cheaper? The $10/month gets you storage, but also bandwidth and hosting and a bunch of tooling. Worth it? Probably so if you want something that mostly just works.
400.
by dpark 6mo ago
Gary Marcus here is making an argument about souls and just doesn't realize it. You could rewrite this whole post replacing "consciousness" with "soul" and it would flow almost the same. He handwaves consciousness
401.
by dpark 6mo ago
> What I am trying to say is that we can only agree something is conscious, and only if it's working on the same principles a human brain does, closely. It's an agreement, not proof, not definitions. We collectively start acce
402.
by dpark 6mo ago
All the claims that AI can't be consciousness seem to mostly be using "consciousness" as a scientific-sounding word for "soul" and asserting that machines can't have souls. > Since this is a totally differe
403.
by dpark 6mo ago
What refutation are you referring to? Surely you can cite how it was "proven scientifically meaningless" some 6 decades ago.
404.
by dpark 6mo ago
> But they also prove that intelligence != consciousness. They prove no such thing. We can't even prove consciousness in other humans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_other_minds
405.
by dpark 6mo ago
You simply defined consciousness as life, which seems like an unusual but also not very useful definition.
406.
by dpark 6mo ago
There is considerable evidence for the existence of Claude.
407.
by dpark 6mo ago
The leaderboards are dumb, but I understand the point of telling people not to worry about tokens and just use it. They are trying to get people to try it, to discover new uses without asking “is this worth testing”. It’s basically early R&
408.
by dpark 6mo ago
I doubt most of this is from rerunning the same prompts over and over. This token burn is more likely from people using swarms of agents and orchestrators for “efficiency”. “I’ve got 2 dozen agents churning through the backlog to build this
409.
by dpark 6mo ago
> responsibly There’s your problem. You’re trying to be responsible instead of trying to burn tokens so you can have your name on top of some leaderboard for most wasteful AI users.
410.
by dpark 6mo ago
> it will no longer primarily be called that This isn’t relevant. Taxis are still cars and that’s something the vast majority of people would agree with. The fact that they have a more specific name doesn’t change anything. A Bungalow
411.
by dpark 6mo ago
Grug need stop TikTok. 5 min read brief.
412.
by dpark 6mo ago
I don’t think it’s ever “ageism” in the normal sense to restrict children’s activities for their safety. But even if that’s the right term in some cases, it hinges on “if the thing does not need to be restricted”. The burden is still to dem
413.
by dpark 6mo ago
I did not accuse you of not engaging in good faith. You accused me of that. I don’t think I responded to anyone in a heated manner, though I will readily admit to being annoyed when you accused me of bad faith. Agree we should move on.
414.
by dpark 6mo ago
I used a rhetorical device to demonstrate why restricting children’s activities is not simply ageism. I don’t know how you can seriously come here and accuse me of engaging in bad faith when I’ve taken the time to make my viewpoint explicit
415.
by dpark 6mo ago
You* are using “ageism” as a synonym for “bad”. You are also labeling restrictions as “ageism” without establishing that they are actually bad. In effect you are saying “that’s bad!” without accepting the burden of establishing why it’s bad
416.
by dpark 6mo ago
My mistake. My question was rhetorical but I thought this whole thread was rooted in the parallel conversation about anonymous credentials systems.
417.
by dpark 6mo ago
I did. Restricting children’s access to certain things is not ageism. We can argue the merits of restricting children’s access to the internet, or certain books, or alcohol, or pornography, or whatever else. We can debate the merits of thos
418.
by dpark 6mo ago
How does a tech company calling into a government database to verify your identity maintain your anonymity?
419.
by dpark 6mo ago
This is literally a “think of the children[‘s freedom]” appeal. You’re not arguing for or against the restriction on its merits. In the US at least there’s also no such thing legally as age discrimination against minors so far as I’m aware.
420.
by dpark 6mo ago
Disagree. We can discuss what restrictions are appropriate or reasonable without calling it ageism. Calling it ageism is an emotional appeal, not a principled stance.

More ›