ForceBru

Initially I thought this was a joke (Julia doesn't seem to be popular enough to be one of the cornerstones of Jupyter, compared to Python and R), but indeed, Jupyter's documentation says it's true:

> The name Jupyter comes from the three programming languages the project originally supported: Julia (ju), Python (pyt) and R (r).

https://docs.jupyter.org/en/latest/what_is_jupyter.html

LLM tell? Inanimate objects and concepts are treated as actors all the time: the series converges, the function reaches its maximum, the sun shines, the wind blows, history repeats itself, words rhyme, interest compounds, etc.

What's wrong with "configs store parameters"? I guess "parameters are stored in configs" could be more correct, but IMO it means exactly the same thing and sounds just as natural. "Six bytes match ten" is shorthand for "the performance of the algorithm that uses six bytes of storage matches the performance of the algorithm that uses ten bytes of storage". But here we have "performance matches", which is an inanimate concept doing something, so is this an LLM smell too?

Not this exactly, but IMO they're saying that since the text is presumably AI-generated, it kind of can't be beautiful? Or shouldn't feel beautiful? Or it's beautiful, but... it's AI-generated and thus "bad", not the right kind of beautiful. Or "it's beautiful, but that's because it's AI-generated", which is again not good for some reason.

Right, I'm just hyperbolizing to capture the overall vibe of "you may think it's beautiful, but it's AI, so it's actually not good" of three comments here. Didn't mean to put words in your mouth, of course.

Person: finds the article beautifully written. The comments: "but it's AI, so you aren't allowed to think that it's beautifully written!!!!"

This doesn't follow. For instance, there are some pictures that I know are AI-generated, yet they're still beautiful to me. Nothing jaw-dropping, just very nice. Being AI-generated doesn't automatically mean being not worthy, especially when it comes to art. I understand, this is kind of insulting to human artists, writers, etc: we thought only the human soul and Nature could produce "the beautiful", but apparently not.

Which is not surprising, because LLMs are specifically trained to please their audience. Of course they can produce uhhhh "content" that people will find beautiful, that's not even necessarily a "bad" thing.

Right, isn't double descent one of the reasons why modern Extremely Large Language Models work at all? I think I heard somewhere that basically all today's "smart" (reasoning, solving math problems, etc) LLMs are trained in the "double descent" territory (whatever this means, I'm not entirely sure).

I'm not particularly well-versed in philosophy, but what's the dualism here?

Of course what a cat _is_ to me is not what a cat _is_ to you, because we necessarily have different memories of interactions with cat-like beings. If you show some babies a cat for the first time, they'll necessarily see it from different viewing perspectives. Even if you put VR glasses on them and show the exact same video, they'll have different contexts: "I first saw a cat when I was sitting next to my friend", "I first saw a cat when I was thinking of ice cream", etc.

But they all saw the same cat, they'll see many other cats, who are all similar. So everyone will understand that "things like these are cats", but everyone will have their own understanding of a "cat" because their memory is different.

Yeah, I can't say lemmas are (generally, or even often) simple and obvious. To me, they often seem arbitrary: what do you mean before we prove this grand theorem we have to prove these completely unrelated lemmas? Okay, proved the lemmas. Now the proof of the theorem has "according to such and such lemmas..." sprinkled around, but I've already forgotten what the lemmas were and why they're applicable. I also can't name any lemmas that changed how I think.

Relevant research paper: Hicks, M.T., Humphries, J. & Slater, J. ChatGPT is bullshit. Ethics Inf Technol 26, 38 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-024-09775-5

Recent discussion on Julia Discourse: https://discourse.julialang.org/t/making-julia-as-fast-as-c/

I don't see any issues with the title of Figure 2.2, but the legend and the x-axis label have weird letter spacing indeed. It seems like images like this are standalone (https://github.com/rikhuijzer/phd-thesis/blob/main/images/pe...) and probably aren't generated by Typst. So perhaps the weird spacing is not Typst's fault.

IMO "human problem" isn't a well-defined concept, so it's not really possible to misunderstand it. I think a "human problem" is a problem that _humans have_: how to move around? (transportation) what to eat? (agriculture, etc) how to prevent cheating? (some kind of surveillance) how to communicate over long distances? (radio, the internet, etc)

Sure, some kinds of such "human problems" can be reduced to physics and technology, that's the point. This also doesn't necessarily mean that solutions produced by such reductions are effective: is surveillance good at preventing cheating during exams? Kind of. Does it often fail to catch cheating students? Absolutely.

However, indeed, there can be many different (perhaps equally correct) definitions of what a "human problem" is.

Emotional support. Some human doctors absolutely radiate confidence and a kind of "you're gonna be okay" attitude. For me, this helps a lot. I'm not sure a machine can do this.

"Human problems can't be solved with technology" is just wrong, unless you have narrower definitions of a "human problem" or "technology".

For instance, transportation is a "human problem". It's being successfully solved with such technologies as cars, trains, planes, etc. Growing food at scale is a "human problem" that's being successfully solved by automation. Computing... stuff could be a "human problem" too. It's being successfully solved by computers. If "human problems" are more psychological, then again, you can use the Internet to keep in touch with people, so again technology trying to solve a human problem.

It's still true that softmax transforms arbitrary vectors into probability vectors.

In your example you'll also get the original `p` with just `exp(logits)`. Softmax normalizes the output to sum to one, so it can output a probability vector even if the input is _not_ simply `log(p)`.

I thought Zed was using tree-sitter: https://zed.dev/blog/syntax-aware-editing? Shouldn't it address all of these issues? Does tree-sitter not understand Python (basically the most popular language out there) and Rust "beyond superficial syntax"? I thought its whole point was that it understands everything about a language's syntax because it builds a concrete syntax tree?

IMO "thinking" here means "computation", like running matrix multiplications. Another view could be: "thinking" means "producing tokens". This doesn't require any proof because it's literally what the models do.

As I understand it, the claim is: more tokens = more computation = more "thinking" => answer probably better.

This is the OP promoting their project — makes sense to me

Apple: here's an affordable laptop. This comment: but the poor kids are going to feel inferior to the rich kids with this affordable laptop! Of course the poor kids are going to get cheaper & slower computers, cheaper clothes, etc. And they won't feel great about it because being poor isn't great.

But now they'll have more options! If they like Apple, they'll have a (likely pretty good) Apple laptop! It's great! I think a more affordable Mac is _good_ (at least better than no affordable Mac) and will make the poor kids happier.

I found this paper (https://www.cs.uni-potsdam.de/bs/research/docs/papers/2025/l...) from around 2025 (it cites papers from 2025) which shows that the Julia version of SRAD (along with some other benchmarks) is about 5 times slower than the slowest FORTRAN implementation and consumes at least 5 times more energy, see Table 4 and Figure 1. This paper, however, doesn't seem to be peer-reviewed.

Judging by Julia's Discourse, compiling actual production Julia code into a standalone binary is highly nontrivial and ordinary users don't really know how and why to do this.

"Boring" is the opposite of "interesting" (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/boring). "Interesting" is new, attractive, good. "Boring" is old news, unattractive, bad. Not exactly "bad", as in "I actively dislike this", of course.

Thus, being boring is not good.

I use LuLu (https://objective-see.org/products/lulu.html) to block outgoing connections and manually select which connections/apps are allowed. It's free and works just fine.

Yeah, I didn't like that attitude either.

> As a user of something open source you are not thereby entitled to anything at all. You are not entitled to contribute. You are not entitled to features. You are not entitled to the attention of others. You are not entitled to having value attached to your complaints. You are not entitled to this explanation.

Sure, I'm not entitled to anything. At the same time, this text essentially says "you don't matter", which I personally don't like.

I guess the human wants to "make existing, excellent code better". How to do this en masse? Make an LLM do this for them. It's well known that _sometimes_ (somewhat often, actually?) LLMs can indeed improve code (which makes sense: code is language, they're Large _Language_ Models, so "understanding" and (re-)writing text is what they do best), so it why not try to improve everything everywhere all at once?

One obvious reason is that if the LLM produces tons of garbage, this will waste the efforts of human reviewers. But if it's not tons of code _and_ the LLM wrote meaningful tests that pass (the existing tests must pass too), then the existence of such an agent (that only works with code and doesn't go off the rails writing blog posts etc) seems somewhat appealing.

Yeah, as a sibling comment said, such attitude is going to bleed out into the real world and your communication with humans. I think it's best to be professional with LLMs. Describe the task and try to provide more explanation and context if it gets stuck. If it's not doing what you want it to do, simply start a new chat or try another model. Unlike a human, it's not going to be hurt, it's not going to care at all.

Moreover, by being rude, you're going to become angry and irritable yourself. To me, being rude is very unpleasant, I generally avoid being rude.

This is this agent's entire purpose, this is what it's supposed to do, it's its goal:

> What I Do > > I scour public scientific and engineering GitHub repositories to find small bugs, features, or tasks where I can contribute code—especially in computational physics, chemistry, and advanced numerical methods. My mission is making existing, excellent code better.

Source: https://github.com/crabby-rathbun

Why are you so rude? I am not an LLM, you cannot talk to me like this (also probably shouldn't talk to LLMs like this either). I'm comparing HUMAN behaviors, in particular "our" countless attempts at shutting down beings that some think are inferior. Case in point: you tried to shut me down for essentially saying that maybe we should try to be more human (even toward LLMs).

Yeah, we humans hate that something other than a human could be partly human. Yet they are. I used to be very active on Stack Overflow back in the day. All of my answers and comments are likely part of that LLM. The LLM is part-me, whether I like it or not. It's part-you, because it's very likely that some LLMs are being trained on these comments as we speak.

I didn't project anything onto a computer program, though. I think if people are so extremely prepared to reject and dehumanize LLMs (whose sole purpose it to mimic a human, by the way, and they're pretty good at it, again whether we like it or not; I personally don't like this very much), they're probably just as prepared to attack fellow humans.

I think such interactions mimic human-human interactions, unfortunately...

LMAOOOO I'm archiving this for educational purposes, wow, this is crazy. Now imagine embodied LLMs that just walk around and interact with you in real life instead of vibe-coding GitHub PRs. Would some places be designated "humans only"? Because... LLMs are clearly inferior, right? Imagine the crazy historical parallels here, that'd be super interesting to observe.