godelski

27 ms·

481.
by godelski 8mo ago
Sure. You can't write to everyone and there's tradeoffs to broadening your audience. But I'm also not sure what your point is. That people are arrogant? Such variety of backgrounds can also be fertile ground for collaboration
482.
by godelski 8mo ago
Yes? I even quite explicitly acknowledge that. There's a cost in either direction. You can't ignore the the costs of reading the tea leaves while acknowledging the costs of unnecessary work. Both have costs. >> Instead w
483.
by godelski 8mo ago
I definitely think all these are important, even if in different ways. For the subtle (and even not so subtle) misunderstandings it matters who misunderstands. For the most part, I don't think we should concern ourselves with non-exper
484.
by godelski 8mo ago
> physics tends to be much more reproducible than biology, and CS doubly-so. With physics I think there is a better culture of reproduction, but that is, I believe, due more to culture. That it is acceptable to "be slow&quot
485.
by godelski 8mo ago
> You either have something documented and quantified and measured and objective criteria tickboxes and deal with this style of failure mode, or you rely on subjective judgment and assessment and accept the failure mode of bias, nep
486.
by godelski 8mo ago
In most of the labs I've worked in replication is not a common task[0] > 'm pretty sure most image fraud went completely unrealized even in the case of replication failure Part of my point is that being unable to publish
487.
by godelski 8mo ago
> challenge accepted dogma without rocking the boat I think the funniest part is how we have all these heroes of science who faced scrutiny by their peers, but triumphed in the end. They struggled because they challenged the stat
488.
by godelski 8mo ago
Are you explaining this from experience or from speculation? I can tell you that it doesn't match my own experience. I also think it doesn't match your example. Those cases of verified image fraud are typically part of replication
489.
by godelski 8mo ago
The problem is bigger. It even blocks research! In my own experience I was unable to publish a few works because I was unable to outperform a "competitor" (technically we're all on the same side, right?). So I dig more and mo
490.
by godelski 8mo ago
> Most will refuse to publish replications, negative studies, or anything they deem unimportant, even if the study was conducted correctly. I think this was really caused by the rise of bureaucracy in academia. Bureaucrats favori
491.
by godelski 8mo ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47333160
492.
by godelski 8mo ago
True, but I seriously doubt people are writing formal proofs for their code. I've only seen this in niche academic circles and high security/safety settings. I also am pretty certain it's not what you're suggesting, but
493.
by godelski 8mo ago
That's the result I've seen with anyone who tries TDD. Their code ends up being very rigid, making it difficult to add new features and fix bugs. It just ends up making them over confident in their code's correctness. As if t
494.
by godelski 8mo ago
> But maybe you're separating automated testing and TDD as two separate concepts? I hope it's clear that I am given my content and how I stress I write tests. The existence of tests do not make development TDD. The firs
495.
by godelski 8mo ago
> you're not trying to prove correctness in a mathematically sound way. > "locking" the behavior to whatever it currently is. These two sentences are incompatible > The #1 reason TDD failed is Becau
496.
by godelski 8mo ago
> Tests only pass if both implementations of your software behave the same way. That's not true. I even addressed this in my comment as did Dijkstra
497.
by godelski 8mo ago
Well they probably have the same ability to evaluate the correctness of a feature as a middle manager with a Harvard business degree
498.
by godelski 8mo ago
> I was talking to a junior developer and they were telling me how Claude is so much smarter than them and they feel inferior. Every time I talk to a wizard I feel like they're so much smarter than me and it makes me feel in
499.
by godelski 8mo ago
Why is everyone obsessed with Mac Minis. They're awesome but for the work that these people are attempting to do? Just seems... nonsensical. Renting a server is cheaper and still just as "local" as any of this (they want &quo
500.
by godelski 8mo ago
I can't believe we're back to advocating for TDD. It was a failed paradigm that last few times we tried it. This time isn't any different because the fundamental flaw has always been the same: tests aren't proofs, they d
501.
by godelski 8mo ago
TDD has always been flawed. Tests can't give you complete coverage, they are always incomplete. Though every time I say this people think I'm against tests. I'm just saying tests can't prove correctness. You'd have
502.
by godelski 8mo ago
I can definitely write programs to solve real world problems. I think you're just so set on your answer that you're not recognizing the flexibility that exists. Your argument isn't so different from all the ones I hear that a
503.
by godelski 8mo ago
I don't understand billionaires. I thought one of their favorite things was to pull up by ladder behind them. Which is why they love regulatory capture so much. At their levels of wealth money means nothing but a high score. That'
504.
by godelski 8mo ago
> To me, a general intelligence is one that is not just specific Which is why a calculator is a great example. > A calculator is a very specific, very inflexible, type of intelligence, so it's not, by definition, gene
505.
by godelski 8mo ago
> I think you're conflating "knowledge" with "intelligence" A calculator is not doing calculations through knowledge. It actually performs computation. It is not doing a database lookup. > And, &qu
506.
by godelski 8mo ago
> we'd still need desk jobs to maintain the guardrails. Agreed. I don't get why people think it is a good idea not to. I'd wager even the AGI would agree. The reason is quite simple: different perspectives help. Re
507.
by godelski 8mo ago
Sorry, I assumed the comment was clear, with your comment above. Here's what I meant: > By your definition every machine has a type of general intelligence. Not just a bog standard calculator, but also my broom. I really don&
508.
by godelski 8mo ago
> Do you know how the human brain works? To what degree of accuracy? Depending on how you answer I might answer yes but I might also answer no.
509.
by godelski 8mo ago
I'd argue it's so vague it's already nonsensical. Can we not declare Google (search) AGI? It sure does a hell of a lot of stuff better than any human I now. Same with the calculator in my desk drawer. Even by broom does a far
510.
by godelski 8mo ago
> If it can do things as good as or better than humans, then either the AI has a type of general intelligence or the human does not. I don't buy that. By your definition every machine has a type of general intelligence. Not

More ›