wpietri

14 ms·

181.
by wpietri 1y ago
I think "the reality", at least as something involving a new paradigm, has yet to be established. I'll note that I heard plenty of similar talk about how developers just couldn't adapt six months or more ago. Promoters n
182.
by wpietri 1y ago
>if respectable people with no stake in selling AI like @tptacek or @kentonv in the other AI thread are saying similar things, you should probably take a closer look. Maybe? Social proof doesn't mean much to me during a hype cycle.
183.
by wpietri 1y ago
Great point. Humans really like to anthropomorphize things. Loud rumbles in the clouds? There must be a dude on top of a mountain somewhere who's in charge of it. Impressed by that tree? It must have a spirit that's like our spiri
184.
by wpietri 1y ago
One of the things I think is going on here is a sort of stone soup effect. [1] Core to Ptacek's point is that everything has changed in the last 6 months. As you and I presume he agree, the use of off-the-shelf LLMs in code was kinda g
185.
by wpietri 1y ago
We agree: There is value in making the compiler happy. There's value in getting tasks done. There's value in pleasing bosses. They are necessary means to an end. However, my point is that one's analysis of the purpose can&#x2
186.
by wpietri 1y ago
I was reading some scholarly work on raven calls. It got into a ton of detail, but it opened with the notion that the fundamental message of every call is "here I am". There were often other messages on top of that (e.g., "he
187.
by wpietri 1y ago
I fundamentally object to any notion of done-ness that is solely focused on pleasing the few people who happen to be in positions of power. Are we all embedded in absurd structures of primate dominance? Sure. Primates gonna prime. But that
188.
by wpietri 1y ago
Yup. That's because they had actual competition in the space. Throwing a (bad) Slack clone for free was a way of preserving and extending their monopoly. But you're still paying for it. The costs to build and fund the product stil
189.
by wpietri 1y ago
Paranoia? People generally don't like you messing with their stuff. They especially don't like it when you add sketchy-looking electronics to things that are expensive and can burn their property down. If you want to take a swing
190.
by wpietri 1y ago
That leaves very visible evidence that things have been hacked. Any time the landlord comes around you'd want to remove that. And if there's some sort of infrastructure emergency (plumbing problem, heat goes out, fire in the build
191.
by wpietri 1y ago
If you really subscribed to POSIWID, you wouldn't be making arguments like "That's probably not the goal", as that's nonsensical from the POSIWID perspective. The nominal goal of the code could well be bots at the
192.
by wpietri 1y ago
I think it's hard to define what meaningful communication is, exactly. By your standards, anybody who has worked a cash register would argue that a notable percentage of customers don't and perhaps can't meaningfully communic
193.
by wpietri 1y ago
I can also recommend bulk roasted unsalted peanuts. They have some advantages: they're cheap, they don't crumble, so you can always have a few in your coat pocket, and they take some work from the crows. They'll enjoy the cha
194.
by wpietri 1y ago
Totally. I've been reading a bunch of stuff related to philosophy of mind lately, and especially the early stuff just assumes this big gap between humans and animals. I think a big factor here is humans wanting to feel special, so anot
195.
by wpietri 1y ago
A large company is much less cohesive than you realize. You can't reliably reason about the goals of one part because another part isn't consistent. This particular difference could easily be explained by insufficient funding to m
196.
by wpietri 2y ago
Sorry, but I think that's ridiculous. Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? What percentage of Americans have working dogs? Or working horses? For the vast majority of both, they are pets. Moreover, there are plenty of other an
197.
by wpietri 2y ago
> I don't think it's cognitive dissonance if you recognize the issue. Well I recognize the issue and still experience a feeling of dissonance. Indeed, I work to be able to be tolerant of that feeling, because I think it's
198.
by wpietri 2y ago
> That is what I was talking about. You replied to it. Why would you reply if you had nothing to add to it? Because you replied to me in a spirit of contradiction while apparently missing my point. I had some hope of clearing that up, bu
199.
by wpietri 2y ago
The dissonance I'm pointing out is that killing and eating some otherwise-equivalent animals is either fine or horrific purely depending on what you're used to. Just running with Americans here, because that's what I'm m
200.
by wpietri 2y ago
If you want to understand my point about dissonance, you might substitute "dog" for "cow". Or you could look at why you wouldn't kill a cow. For me, I would feel pretty awful about it. I think, for example, about th
201.
by wpietri 2y ago
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it. I'm saying there's a dissonance. And I'm saying it's important that we recognize that we all experience this dissonance, and that we should face it rather than jus
202.
by wpietri 2y ago
Sure. I don't begrudge them either. I'm just pointing out that feeling of conflict. I think how we respond to that is important. And bringing it back to the original post, I think his MAGA fisherman just getting mad or changing th
203.
by wpietri 2y ago
That's not what I was talking about. My point is that everybody experiences cognitive dissonance. Eating meat is a convenient example, because almost nobody reading this has no other choice, and almost nobody here hates animals (or at
204.
by wpietri 2y ago
The original post was talking about cognitive dissonance in other people. My point was that we all experience things like this. Food is a convenient example, because the few people who aren't hypocritical about it in some way are very
205.
by wpietri 2y ago
Sorry, but I don't think anybody in this discussion is starving to death. I am pretty clearly discussing one's normal dietary choices. What people do in extremes is an entirely different topic, one I'd be happy to discuss on
206.
by wpietri 2y ago
No, you can still find hypocrisy in politics. A person can vote for a party while not agreeing with every one of their platform points. They can also vote for a party and then criticize it later for not following through. As long as they&#x
207.
by wpietri 2y ago
Turns out this varies widely by culture. In many places, it's taboo: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_meat If you'd like a different example that gets the same feeling, try substituting something else cons
208.
by wpietri 2y ago
It's also an important word, albeit not a very useful one in this age: For how can you compete, Being honor bred, with one Who were it proved he lies Were neither shamed in his own Nor in his neighbors' eyes;
209.
by wpietri 2y ago
> You have to eat. If a burger is the best choice in front of you, it is reasonable to make that choice. Ok. Now try that sentence with "leg of a dog". Does that still feel reasonable? I think the difference isn't that one
210.
by wpietri 2y ago
I find it frustrating when somebody replies as if they've only read one sentence in a paragraph. I also said, "I like animals and I eat meat." I thought that was pretty clear, but if you'd like me to beat the point to de

More ›