voidhorse

3 ms·

1.
by voidhorse 5d ago
Huh, it's almost like using agents exclusively to write software doesn't lead to quality code or a quality product. Interesting.
2.
by voidhorse 8d ago
Yes, that kind of indeterminate conclusion I can accept. What I cannot accept are people like the parent who want to ignore the very possibility of an issue or the role of this buildout in contributing entirely or who want to claim othe
3.
by voidhorse 8d ago
Your posts make me sad. Your replies are a bunch of empty verbiage that fail to acknowledge the very basic and concrete flaws in your posts (lack of evidence for your claims, arguing past the article by completely changing the locus of anal
4.
by voidhorse 8d ago
You ought to apply your own standards to your own comments. The OP is an article that: 1. Raises a number of broad social and ethical concerns about AI. 2. Provides links to back up some of these claims. Yes, it also vents some frustration
5.
by voidhorse 8d ago
> One thing I've learned in life is to accept that I'm in many ways an outlier, which means that even if the research is done, it frequently doesn't apply to me anyway. This is a complete logical fallacy. It is quite liter
6.
by voidhorse 8d ago
> So the US's data centers are currently using 1% of the US's energy and adding ½% per year, so that in 02027 that number increases to 2%. 1% of an entire nation's energy production for a single, non-essential use-case is
7.
by voidhorse 8d ago
Precisely. The parent is responding to what is an argument about the social , ethical long term effects of a technology by effectively saying "don't care, I personally benefit so whatever". Ironically this kind of response
8.
by voidhorse 8d ago
> general environmental doom-mongering I don't think this criticism is very well thought out. There's ample evidence at this point that we are sliding precipitously toward environmental catastrophe and, no, the massive data cen
9.
by voidhorse 10d ago
Whenever I see comments like this it just reminds me how ignorant people are of neurobiology. The brain is insanely complicated. The premise that we could realize equivalent or better intelligence than eons of evolutionary development is li
10.
by voidhorse 10d ago
Everyone is (predictably) getting distracted by the consciousness claims. The more important, and more damning charge in my opinion is the circular reasoning involved in training on Claude's constitution. This would in fact make it imp
11.
by voidhorse 12d ago
Raw magnitudes are meaningless when discussing economics. Wages are still being outpaced by costs. There is no sense in which a barista is working a "high paying" job. At current rates it could well be the case that running AI to
12.
by voidhorse 12d ago
Part of it is their seed sowing marketing speak of calling stateless statistical IO functions running on data centers "intelligent" gets the naive to ascribe agency where it doesn't exist. Another part is a completely defange
13.
by voidhorse 12d ago
Should probably have a (2018) or (2024) (latest revision) on the title, especially given the current buzz surrounding AI and security/existential threats.
14.
by voidhorse 12d ago
Unfortunately that will never happen because the people who stand to benefit most from AI already have cost-efficient (see grossly underpaid) humans to do this for them. They need AI to replace the expensive not cost-effective humans.
15.
by voidhorse 12d ago
Not to mention, it relies on a ton of completely undefined concepts. No one can actually tell you what ASI is or entails because it isn't a legitimate, operational concept. It is a fairy tale. We can't even define "alignment&
16.
by voidhorse 12d ago
This. If you truly believe the thing you are building is going to kill you and your family, your decision is not "let's keep going" unless you are a complete nihilist. The fact that people buy the whole "well we have to
17.
by voidhorse 14d ago
First of all, I do not think they've been pursuing that to the degree that you think. But even assuming that's the case, the natural thing to do in that scenario is to not contribute to the development of the doomsday device. But
18.
by voidhorse 14d ago
No, what you would do is stop your own private development immediately, get in touch with the government by any means necessary, and build a coalition as fast as possible to stop the technology from continuing and put hard regulation (deter
19.
by voidhorse 14d ago
Thank you. This is the kind of basic critical thinking that basically no one in technology today seems to possess. Some days I wonder if I've gone insane because everyone else seems to be staking life itself on wispy, undefined meani
20.
by voidhorse 14d ago
This is a fine example of how rational good faith can quickly turn into naivety. Consider the massive power and wealth differentials these companies stand to gain if they "win". When the other participants have given up all reason
21.
by voidhorse 14d ago
Bingo. What we're seeing is all their early bullshitting and waffling about intelligence back when the models couldn't count the r's in strawberry paying off. They've managed to dupe the dull eyed masses into thinking th
22.
by voidhorse 14d ago
Cool, I guess we can all give up and go to bed then. The propositions: (1) humanity has always dealt with crises and (2) absurd wealth and inequity gives those crises particular shape, makes new crises acute, and creates crises unheard of a
23.
by voidhorse 14d ago
Yes, thank you. The demise of basic reading comprehension skills will be the true end of us all.
24.
by voidhorse 16d ago
Our society overconsumes by insane degrees. TBH the world would probably be a better place if most people limited their consumption to what they could reasonably acquire on disk.
25.
by voidhorse 19d ago
I don't think it's possible to have a universal "colloquial" definition of "simple" that is also precise. It's all relative. This is why I think the formalists studying complexity back in the 50s had the r
26.
by voidhorse 19d ago
Definitely. Much of the structure of internet media encourages constant, passive consumption. Or, to use the terms of the grandparent, we move traded ambient thinking , reflection , and imagination , which the brain is pushed into duri
27.
by voidhorse 19d ago
Programming can be a medium of expression for working through ideas. However, source code is not art in the same way that the paintbrush is not art. I think because a program is textual, people incorrectly draw analogical conclusions for pr
28.
by voidhorse 19d ago
I'm fully convinced that people who think agents write decent code now simply don't read the code. Their bar is "it runs, so it's fine". Just as they produce writing that isn't structured well for humans, they
29.
by voidhorse 19d ago
The biggest tell is that, most of the time, verbatim LLM output still doesn't actually make much sense if you read it carefully. Consider this excerpt from a README someone linked in the comments: > A compiler for the interface yo
30.
by voidhorse 19d ago
When human beings write we do so with a particular perspective with an intention to communicate to a particular audience. Even the driest scientific writing is partially informed by the experiences of the researchers, no matter how hard t

More ›