js8

5 ms·

31.
by js8 28d ago
It's not clear if it is foolish. The situation will probably be like with airline pilots. The plane is mostly an automated system, but we simply don't let automation to work through exceptional situations, without human review. Th
32.
by js8 1mo ago
The "next-token predictor" is taking a design stance (see Dennett). But to take the intentional stance is more interesting in case of large language/reasoning models.
33.
by js8 1mo ago
No, it's not a problem. The suppliers cannot keep increasing the prices to match UBI, because they will face increased competition from people who now have other options (more freedom) thanks to UBI. For example, let's say I buy v
34.
by js8 1mo ago
The US GDP per capita is 94k a year. The average salary is 69k a year; this is a proxy for the price of labor. So you can easily have 20k UBI for everyone in the US, the country is rich enough.
35.
by js8 1mo ago
No, you cannot say the same about computers, because the technology is almost never the problem. The problem is cultural. The deregulation since the 70s created oligarchs and encouraged lack of moral scruples. See also https://ne
36.
by js8 1mo ago
Of course you can! It's called boycott. The workers who strike in a factory don't do that because they think the thing being produced is being socially useless. They do it because they demand social change.
37.
by js8 1mo ago
You should ask the billionaires about "dignity of work", they are the welfare queens. And also about "independence" on the people who work for them. What you're saying is just classist prejudice.
38.
by js8 1mo ago
I don't understand what you're saying. I agree that food insecurity could be fixed; it's a redistribution problem. UBI is a way to fix it. But I don't see how we are forcing people to be low class with UBI (as opposed to
39.
by js8 1mo ago
"I don't think everyone except the extremely wealthy being on basic income is ideal or better than what we have now" Seriously? One sixth of the U.S. population is food-insecure. You don't think that basic income would f
40.
by js8 1mo ago
Yeah. But, unlike China, the West doesn't seem to want to invest very much into real-world engineering. Except maybe military for forever wars, which is ethically way worse. This is a side effect of capital accumulation. There's n
41.
by js8 1mo ago
I was about to say, it's not just IT industry, it's capitalism leading to this.
42.
by js8 1mo ago
Yes, you can express everything using lambda calculus. Kinda.. so why not use a thing that already exists? Why invent a new language (encapsulation) when previous (binding) suffices?
43.
by js8 1mo ago
That relates to another misunderstanding. These ideas like "everything is a function" or "everything is a category" are not there to help you understand complex system better. They are supposed to help you build better f
44.
by js8 1mo ago
Well, I just wrote a comment that could be considered an "OOP hate". I was debating whether to do it. The point is not to be snug about it. Functional programming (and monads) are actually simpler. You just need to resist the urge
45.
by js8 1mo ago
Well, what I don't understand is the SW engineering propensity towards cargo culting and doing things the harder way than mathematicians do. I see it with OOP, XML, design patterns, and other things, now with LLMs. (LLMs - you really w
46.
by js8 1mo ago
What are your arguments for a ban? Why do you expect someone to listen if you didn't provide a justification?
47.
by js8 1mo ago
But the soldiers didn't have the mobile phones then. This was possible by manipulation the information about reality those soldiers had. For example, how Mallory can gain power over Alice and Bob who don't directly communicate. Fi
48.
by js8 1mo ago
Fair enough, let's say that happens. But what we're gonna manage the codebase in, then? What kind of language? Will it be a natural language, or a formal one? I feel that "coding" cannot collapse. Coding is just translat
49.
by js8 2mo ago
Kinda pointless, because a) I am already convinced that P=NP b) You have to convince many other people as well (that you're a magic oracle), because for the effect to work, lot of people would have to work on the problem (or at least s
50.
by js8 2mo ago
"But seemingly models good at programming for example, would get worse at programming if you removed everything not-programming. Train a model solely on syntax, and it'll be worse than a general purpose LLM on syntax, in general a
51.
by js8 2mo ago
I partly agree. Theory (of computation) shows it must be possible, however nobody has produced the small model (well, depends who you ask, what is small, article disputes that) and the database yet. To go very small (thousands of rules) so
52.
by js8 2mo ago
The cost you pay is in additional reasoning the SLMs have to do. As I write elsewhere, LLM "remembers" that "Socrates is mortal", or other commonly useful deduction. SLM might need to derive it first by reasoning from th
53.
by js8 2mo ago
I believe it is true, and likely there exists a class of even smaller models than what they call "small". You can imagine a reasoning model as a huge set of rules that generate the next statement from previous statements (written
54.
by js8 2mo ago
I know, the goal was to strongman the argument.
55.
by js8 2mo ago
Oh it would change a lot. It would be an enormous psychological boost for everyone to find a practical algorithm. In any case, I think it's better to read PP as somebody would find a practical, albeit incomprehensible, algorithm for so
56.
by js8 2mo ago
I should have noted, my comment is about facts. Opinion you can have, if you think it's beneficial for you not to trust (or trust) some nodes, do so! The public social graph would be about who is a human, that can certify facts. Their
57.
by js8 2mo ago
Mass reporting means spending huge amount of reputation which doesn't really invalidate reputation of people who still certify that the person exists. The problem with the current systems is that reputation buying is not transparent. I
58.
by js8 2mo ago
Hm, that's an interesting point. But wasn't problem of that model that the social graph (links) were not really public, but rather hidden within a search engine such as Google? Maybe if they are public the problem would be mitigat
59.
by js8 2mo ago
Maybe.. too many other interesting things to work on.
60.
by js8 2mo ago
I am not really sure how it could be faked. The fake assurance, in order to work, must be connected to you. By default you could choose not to trust. If you don't trust random strangers it's OK. So I don't see how it would da

More ›