dullcrisp

12 ms·

1.
by dullcrisp 12d ago
Have we quantified the x-risk of Magnus Carlsen?
2.
by dullcrisp 12d ago
Same same.
3.
by dullcrisp 12d ago
Yes, just like that. What would it take for you to accept Our Lord into your heart?
4.
by dullcrisp 12d ago
Not confrontational, but proselytizing.
5.
by dullcrisp 12d ago
There are no goalposts. No one is trying to score points except you.
6.
by dullcrisp 12d ago
I don’t really understand this exercise of predicting what I’ll be thinking in the future.
7.
by dullcrisp 12d ago
No. Why? If you want to convince people something is true you need to actually convince them it’s true. They don’t need to justify not believing you.
8.
by dullcrisp 15d ago
You have a practical obligation to obey existing power structures. That’s what makes it a power structure. What do you all think is happening here? There have been people who decided what math gets published for centuries.
9.
by dullcrisp 15d ago
They’re not asking them to stop working on AI, but to stop publishing mathematics.
10.
by dullcrisp 16d ago
This article doesn’t present much motivation for why you would do this. To me it reads a bit like, how we built our office without desks: it turns out if you stack two chairs on top of each other, you can balance your laptop on the top and
11.
by dullcrisp 16d ago
What if it turns out that if all the AIs cooperate they can end the world really easily without finishing any taxi rides?
12.
by dullcrisp 16d ago
They’re making an oblique reference to Pope Urban VIII.
13.
by dullcrisp 16d ago
> Perhaps you might see fit to conclude your earthly endeavours at your earliest convenience? I’m stealing this.
14.
by dullcrisp 23d ago
> I did not like it at all. Because it left you fewer opportunities to experience the ecstasy of typing git commands into a terminal? Or because it didn't work so well?
15.
by dullcrisp 24d ago
Then you’ll probably appreciate being able to manipulate it the same way as any other change, but they could do a better job of marketing it that way.
16.
by dullcrisp 24d ago
I guess you could say it’s a skill issue.
17.
by dullcrisp 24d ago
Along with the appropriate git stash and git stash pops or git commit -anm wip and git reset HEAD^ so long as you’re not using your staging area for anything, yeah. But if the cherry pick doesn’t cleanly apply at the current HEAD, then you
18.
by dullcrisp 24d ago
It does take a few days to stop missing interactive rebase. But say you’re in the middle of working on something and you wish you had a commit you made last week on an experimental branch on the current branch before the last commit you mad
19.
by dullcrisp 24d ago
I don’t know about you, but if you ever run git commit --amend, git rebase -i, git reset, git reset --hard, git stash, git add ., git push --force-with-lease, then these are all workflows that jujutsu makes easier and less error-prone.
20.
by dullcrisp 24d ago
Yeah again fair enough. You can use formal methods to provably maintain invariants that are useful to you in development without shipping formal proofs of full system behavior.
21.
by dullcrisp 24d ago
That’s fair I suppose I’m being a bit obtuse. But this level of formal verification gets you to the level of confidence you’d have if you had written the program in Rust or Java in the first place. The original post was talking about formal
22.
by dullcrisp 24d ago
I get that, but I meant more philosophically, why is it especially useful to verify that no behavior is undefined if the defined behavior is also not defined, other that according to the compiler spec?
23.
by dullcrisp 24d ago
I’m not just being funny, but how do you define undefined behavior?
24.
by dullcrisp 29d ago
You’re upset that they banned the illegal drugs but not the legal ones? They probably just need more education to reach your level of logical thinking.
25.
by dullcrisp 1mo ago
Thanks for responding. I think that makes sense. I’m definitely thinking of it from a language semantics perspective and this is a case where type erasure feels particularly counterintuitive to me. Would including the specialized method in
26.
by dullcrisp 1mo ago
I’m not sure I fully understand why the compiler can’t derive the specialized apply method in this case. I guess I follow the technical reason that the interface doesn’t override the method so there can’t be a specialized version of it. But
27.
by dullcrisp 1mo ago
Also 1 in 6.2 billion for Safari on an iPhone. Also the explanation on the bottom is very small and AI generated.
28.
by dullcrisp 1mo ago
As you claim to understand, they don’t know things, they sort of drift on vibes. Telling them to refuse things they think will be hard will only accomplish making them more annoying.
29.
by dullcrisp 1mo ago
Yes and you suggested Anthropic have their coding agent refuse to attempt to solve anything it can’t find a preexisting solution to in case it turns out to be hard, if I understand you correctly. Knowing how hard something will be to do bef
30.
by dullcrisp 1mo ago
Have you ever tried using one? Or just understanding them?

More ›