js8

3 ms·

1.
by js8 5d ago
I am also not sure if the observation is true. People mentioned cats as a counterexample. I think there are other species that could be considered more capable than humans, such as E. Coli, octopuses or ants. And it's not even clear wh
2.
by js8 5d ago
Liberalism has both economic (free market) roots and political roots. The first "leftists" were the French revolutionaries and they wanted (political) freedom as well. The reason liberalism is in the "center" is because
3.
by js8 5d ago
> where companies provide the user/customer with an interface to an AI that can do things for the user I'm afraid it is the future. The companies will protect all documentation and IP by putting it behind AI agents, and will mo
4.
by js8 5d ago
I am from EU, leftist, socialist and liberal (the left parts), and I can assure you, (a) most leftists (90%) are as liberal and antiauthoritarian as it gets, and (b) we are as powerless to change these things as you are. Possibly, if you ch
5.
by js8 6d ago
You have a point; I am looking at it from quite functional programming perspective, because that's how type systems are typically understood. So from that perspective, interior mutability is a form of rebinding. When you say "we c
6.
by js8 6d ago
Fair enough. Although I don't fully subscribe to the dichotomy of compile vs run time, we can say that.
7.
by js8 6d ago
I feel like the explanation is overcomplicated. Types are properties of values, not variables. Mutability is a property of variable, not of a value. So it's kind of a categorical error. (I want to joke here that all categorical errors
8.
by js8 6d ago
I was a PhD student for a while, but I always enjoyed "refactoring" proofs, more than coming up with new ones. Making them simpler, shorter, clearer. Unfortunately, it's not much rewarded.
9.
by js8 6d ago
Today, the difficult shit is how to get the resources from the people who use them to turn difficult shit into an easy shit. Basically, a war. I am not sure I want people to move on to that.
10.
by js8 8d ago
I agree with the 2nd sentence onwards, and I think I expressed it in the other comments I made here. I am not really sure what was your point about "execution", though. Humans might have inner interpreter loops as well.
11.
by js8 9d ago
I wish Terry Tao would prepend the guest names on his blogposts, this is not the first time it's confusing.
12.
by js8 9d ago
I disagree we understand LLMs, your view is quite reductionist. It's like saying we understand human brain because we understand physics and evolution, or that we understand some program because it's just a binary code in a known
13.
by js8 9d ago
Not really sure if it's sarcasm, but let me make a side remark. It's really stunning how much more effective the "Standard ML" notation (embraced by Haskell, Lean etc.) is compared to writing proofs in classical logic. T
14.
by js8 9d ago
I disagree, to keep it short, what you're describing is not understanding, it's superstition. And I think it's a wrong direction of engineering, relying on some sort of irreproducible expert intuition, one that has been succe
15.
by js8 9d ago
I agree LLMs are useful tools, but I am dismayed by a lot of cargo-culting around them, which happens because we don't understand them. I think we will have much better tools when we understand what is the expectation and what is the a
16.
by js8 9d ago
"You could say the same thing about human programmers, but I've never heard anyone say they think that programmers "execute" Jira tickets." Yes I could. We have "executives", for starters. And first "
17.
by js8 10d ago
I would agree with EDW, and I have argued here in a similar way. I am not against use of NL in negotiation or poetry. If you find ambiguity useful there, be my guest. But engineering specifications, mathematics, as well as other sciences or
18.
by js8 10d ago
Well.. I think this is a big open problem in philosophy. On one hand, you have things like Lean (calculus of inductive constructions), these are relatively simple formal logics (just in more practical notation) that let you define any conce
19.
by js8 10d ago
I disagree with each sentence for a different reason. LLMs interpret (so, "execute" in a way) natural language in the sense they have internal logic that assigns to the sequence of tokens in context a next token. If we delineate t
20.
by js8 10d ago
I am not sure what your counterargument is. But in mathematics and computation, people have tried for at least 150 years to move away from natural language, and figure out stable foundations that can be externalized. I think there is a good
21.
by js8 10d ago
I answered this to myself - stop worrying about LLMs. It's pretty simple: due to Curry-Howard isomorphism, programming languages are just notations for some type of formal logic. Now ask yourself a question, what language do you want t
22.
by js8 13d ago
It's basically a convention. The alternative is to raise interrupts of course, but that might be application specific, or use other invalid instructions than the designated one, but they might work differently on other processor types.
23.
by js8 14d ago
Philosophy yes, but Dennett's design vs intentional stance is a more appropriate tool here. Design stance is, LLM is a next word predictor. Intentional stance is, LLM can reason, according to what rules?
24.
by js8 15d ago
Graeber actually points out that centrally-planned economies had formally higher work hours than was the reality (people slacked off more), and that it was akin to workers collectively making a choice working less for the overall lower prod
25.
by js8 16d ago
I originally read the headline as "Silicon Valley Is Transforming Military-Industrial Complex".
26.
by js8 16d ago
Is Microsoft still trying to embrace, extend, extinguish Netscape after all those years? :-)
27.
by js8 16d ago
No, the term itself is not stigmatizing. People stigmatize legitimate psychiatric diagnoses, and you're perpetuating this idea in your comment, by blaming the term for the moral failure. These labels don't exists to stigmatize peo
28.
by js8 17d ago
I was bound to agree with you before I RTFA. The classification is useful for a psychiatrist, i.e. someone who wants to help the person. "Bad coworker" can have many causes. In prolific AI psychosis, I think the assumption (differ
29.
by js8 17d ago
> Maybe you can upgrade digital systems until they are 'fully fortified' in theory, but humans have an upper limit what they can understand / perceive / critically analyse (not to even speak about engineered high pres
30.
by js8 18d ago
Not to mention, the idea that Germany, 3rd or 4th largest economy on Earth, cannot defend itself on its own and needs American troops "to defend itself" is just ridiculous. The Americans are there as a front of US empire (IIRC Ram

More ›