scott_weber

3 ms·

1.
by scott_weber 8d ago
> the value will tend towards infinity It may be the case that the potential output of a worker engaging in the productive process goes arbitrarily high. But the that won't matter, if they're not permitted to. Given a choice be
2.
by scott_weber 8d ago
"socialising the means of production" doesn't mean "everyone gets free stuff". It simply means that the people who actually work the means of production decide how it's directed. It's simply the antithesis
3.
by scott_weber 8d ago
Marx envisioned the class struggle ending with the triumph of the working class, and a subsequent dissolution of all class systems. AGI, if defined as a fully general replacement for labour, suggests a "bad ending" to class strugg
4.
by scott_weber 16d ago
Maybe less than we might hope. Not only is the knowledge distributed over the hundreds of people involved in designing a car, there may be conventions/habits of design and manufacture whose purpose has become hazy but are nevertheless
5.
by scott_weber 17d ago
> AI decides that energy spent toward human agriculture is less important than work spent toward storage and production of energy I mean. Don't need rogue AI for this. These are already the policies of those in charge of it: human n
6.
by scott_weber 17d ago
The classic worry is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter : the soot thrown up by the ensuing urban fire storms causing temperatures, rainfall to plummet, and hence food production. On reading the scenarios the
7.
by scott_weber 17d ago
The question of whether something can be automated is distinct from the question of whether it is currently automated. Things can can be automated may transition to being automated in practice in the future as technology improves and
8.
by scott_weber 18d ago
It should be quite easy: if they don't leak the user session data publicly, and don't commingle it with training data internally, how could it possibly end up in the training data? What surprises me is they're not more boldly
9.
by scott_weber 19d ago
Agree model providers can't take much margin, a few percent plus maybe a bit extra from those willing to pay for a "better" model. Upstream is more concentrated: TSMC, NVIDIA, AMD could maybe raise prices and capture more of
10.
by scott_weber 20d ago
LLMs don't "understand bitwise noise at a native level". The unit of perception for an LLM is a token, a soundly superbit level. They would have the same difficulty with bits as the number of "r"s in "strawberr
11.
by scott_weber 20d ago
Gradient descent and reinforcement learning algorithms don't really look much like evolution, unless you squint so hard that everything does (ie, squinted so hard that you've closed your eyes).
12.
by scott_weber 25d ago
They're messaging each other by jamming strings in a constrained (unauthorised) side channel. Hence the lack of spaces. Unclear how much else of the weirdness is just from those constraints
13.
by scott_weber 26d ago
And here I at first thought the direction the original post was going was "here's how I got a LLM to do this automatically". Seems like it would not be so difficult. Might still be be a win over their innate dispositions.
14.
by scott_weber 1mo ago
My read of "manufacture a huge amount of products" was that it's not even about software. America is still the world's second largest manufacturing economy, and per capita produces more than China! https://e
15.
by scott_weber 2mo ago
So labour doesn't really scale. It's measured in hours, and you only get so many of those in a week. If you're using "scale your labour" to mean "scale your output". Well, two cases: your selling your labo
16.
by scott_weber 2mo ago
Very convenient, if you're someone who benefits from this arrangement, to be able to tell yourself that a brute numerical fact (if you profit off others labour, there must be those whose labour is profited off of) just so happens to by
17.
by scott_weber 2mo ago
The difference might be the immense cost of physical infrastructure needed for AI training. People would make open source contributions for free, TSMC, NVIDIA and power companies seems less likely to make free contributions to AI.
18.
by scott_weber 10y ago
Sponge delays the overwriting of the input file, so its not trying to read and write quinedb at the same time.
19.
by scott_weber 13y ago
(FirstName, LastName) is probably not a very good UNIQUE KEY.
20.
by scott_weber 14y ago
The numbers are correct, but it was written in an odd way. Grovers algorithm gives a speedup of sqrt(n), so the exponent gets halved.
21.
by scott_weber 14y ago
Not sure if I'm labouring under basic misconception here (or if you're trolling). First, you note that BPP <= P/poly. Secondly, you note that it is hard to prove P = BPP, but this is not necessary, all we need is the trivial P <= BP
22.
by scott_weber 14y ago
Perhaps Bret Victor's ideas are comparable to something like formal methods: few doubt their enormous power, but the difficulty is in the extreme effort one needs to implement them in a project. It is tempting to believe that the level of i