walleeee

5 ms·

31.
by walleeee 1y ago
> we all should hope If you're serious about anything, you do more than hope. You do diligence on your prospective employer before going to work for them. You think through a litany of contingencies and prepare a plan of action for
32.
by walleeee 1y ago
Regardless whether the rest of society finds the programmers responsible, the integrity of that society depends upon programmers in such situations holding themselves accountable. Apparatchik or moral agent? That choice remains ours.
33.
by walleeee 1y ago
No, it's probably not that simple. His self-interested maneuvering is without doubt part of the story, but it's very unlikely to be all of it.
34.
by walleeee 1y ago
> Habit formation is the moat Well, at least you're honest about it.
35.
by walleeee 1y ago
A lot more power than what?
36.
by walleeee 1y ago
> limit allowed computing power This will of course be the policy set by physics once we have exhausted all the easily accessible energy reserves: limited everything power. Nature will conduct Butlerian jihad with no great zeal or ardor,
37.
by walleeee 1y ago
ambiguous enough to work no matter who you're talking to
38.
by walleeee 1y ago
Certainly we have machines that can do any number of tasks for us. The problem is deciding which ones to let them. Delegating to artificial constructs is an old habit and its effects are more apparent today than ever. It's not the prin
39.
by walleeee 1y ago
The compute-oriented myopia is less of a bug than a feature of the underlying mythology. The promise of abundance on the horizon is a central pillar in the narrative's self-justification and its plausibility requires energy blindness
40.
by walleeee 1y ago
The "natural order" is that robots are primitive, fragile, energy- and materials-inefficient contraptions balancing on the knife-edge of entropy deferred for a moment but due as soon as the power goes out or repairs prove too cost
41.
by walleeee 1y ago
Who built it? The answer illuminates your final paragraph, although it does suggest maybe rethinking "replacement"
42.
by walleeee 1y ago
Wolin is insightful in this regard
43.
by walleeee 1y ago
> I postulated that innovation in a society is not bounded by the median intelligence (or perhaps more accurately ability to innovate) of its members but by the intelligence/ability to innovate of its top members as ranked by intell
44.
by walleeee 1y ago
> [ants] are incapable of recognizing innovation, so even if you throw in a group of Fermat ants into the mix, they will still end up working as just slightly more efficient drones. And yet the anthill does very complex things even thoug
45.
by walleeee 1y ago
A thorough analysis of the materials/energy reality we inhabit could lead one to make a similar decision for environmental reasons alone
46.
by walleeee 1y ago
So, reduces cognitive engagement with the actual task at hand, and forces a huge attention share to hand-holding. I don't think you two are disagreeing. I have noticed this personally. It's a lot like the fatigue one gets from too
47.
by walleeee 1y ago
Modern life can simultaneously be full of subtle stresses not inflicted on an inhabitant of a previous era and free of many of the worst traumas possible in that era. Catastrophizing is unhealthy, yes, and is amenable to therapy. It's
48.
by walleeee 1y ago
I agree with you.
49.
by walleeee 1y ago
This evokes Lyotard's notion of narrative sense-making, in which narrative is periodic, i.e. rhythmic, in a way standing outside of time, or outside any particular moment in time, and is implicitly self-legitimizing in a way more forma
50.
by walleeee 1y ago
It can be read charitably as claiming that society is traumatic in different ways, maybe, and in a wider variety of ways. Which is much more defensible. A rapid change in everyday psychological or physiological reality is traumatic, by defi
51.
by walleeee 1y ago
If your point is that competent people must direct the activities of a group in order to accomplish a complicated task, sure. That's almost always true. > Collective intelligence of a group is bounded by the smartest person there. I
52.
by walleeee 1y ago
That would be the nuclear option, but if you have any rapport at all with the person or team in question, you could also just pull them aside, ask if they are under unusual pressure to show progress, and make it clear that you get it, and y
53.
by walleeee 1y ago
I'm not sure what to make of the point about 1 or 10,000 people. 1 person can definitely build a primitive aircraft with time, money and perseverance. No 10,000 random people, whether IQ 100 or 1000, will build an airliner, but Airbus
54.
by walleeee 1y ago
Ignoring the difficulty of defining such a needle in a general sense, I still think the point is disproved by the fact that groups can do things no individual member can conceive of, let alone do, alone. If it's true of ants, who we l
55.
by walleeee 1y ago
> the intellectual capability of a group of people is measured by the intellectual capability of the smartest person there, not the average of all the people. Nonsense. The capacities of an organized group of people are very different fr
56.
by walleeee 1y ago
> Why should you take the time to write back personally? Because it's 3 sentences, if you want to be way more polite and verbose than necessary. "I will close PRs if they appear to be largely LLM-generated. I am always happy to
57.
by walleeee 1y ago
If basic interventions in public health could widely prevent or improve chronic conditions, would big pharma or big food voluntarily change its business model for the public good? If wellknown land management practices could cure the declin
58.
by walleeee 1y ago
> Ironically, despite how they're sold, these tools are infinitely better at going from code to English than going the other way around. Yes. Decently useful (and reasonably safe) to red team yourself with. But extremely easy to red
59.
by walleeee 1y ago
Sure, you can simulate a brain. If and when the simulation starts to talk you can even claim you understand how to build human intelligence in a limited sense. You don't know if it's a complete model of the organism until you unde
60.
by walleeee 1y ago
> It is vacuously true that a Turing machine can implement human intelligence The case of simulating all known physics is stronger so I'll consider that. But still it tells us nothing, as the Turing machine can't be built. It i

More ›