4,694 karma · joined August 16, 2023
Probably the same law that limits compute power wrt to space and energy.
Look at how much energy goes into training GPT 4.5 vs it’s improvements (on our own potentially bunk benchmarks, granted)
Also like… literally nothing in the universe advances exponentially forever.
Whether or not any of that is valid, I’d like an answer to my question.
Is the only reason you think that a blind belief that AI will advance exponentially in all domains?
Over time you’ll see many major revisions as you do in every other framework in existence.
What more would you want?
Average viewers are largely unaffected, so it’s not a topic that makes for great content.
I’ve need no evidence that AI writes particularly performant code (especially wrt to specific hardware.)
Nor have I seen any big player showing off models which were tuned for performant code generation.
Code performance work is almost always very specific to the codebase at hand and not at all general.
“If they were working with foreign powers to weaken the US, what would they be doing differently”
We literally know exactly what is going on with every layer.
It’s well defined. There are mathematical proofs for everything.
Moreover it’s all machine instructions which can be observed.
The emergent properties we see in LLMs are surprising and impressive, but not magic. Internally what is happening is a bunch of matrix multiplications.
There’s no internal thought or process or anything like that.
It’s all “just” math.
To assume anything else is personification bias.
To look at LLMs outputting text and a human writing text and think “oh these two things must be working in the same way” is just… not a very critical line of thought.
Mobile users are very complacent
Talk to any average roguelike/lite enjoyer and they’ll identify that as the difference.
“Roguelikes” do tend to have that same top down grid style, though.
Can’t think of any permadeath games without metaprogression which encourage replaying the whole game on death and which don’t use that format.
Just like with lisps. Some devs may split hairs over what is and is not a lisp, but for most people, if the language is dynamic, garbage collected, has a regular parens-heavy syntax, and has powerful macro features, it’s a lisp.
You don’t know this. I don’t feel like I generate thoughts in sequence, for me it feels hierarchical.
> can't arbitrarily mutate what came before
Uhh… what?
Do you remember your memories as a child? Or what you ate for breakfast 3 weeks ago?
Have you ever misremembered an event or half remembered a solution to a problem?
The information in human minds are entirely mutable. They are not like computers…
> It's not a bag full of NULLs that just pulls next words from a look-up table.
Funny enough, the attention mechanism that’s popular right now is effectively lots and lots of stacked look up tables. That’s how it’s taught as well (what with the Q K and V)
Tho I don’t think that’s a requirement for LLMs in general.
I find a lot of people who half understand cognition and understand computing look at LLMs and work backwards to convince themselves that it’s “thinking” or doing more cognitive functions like we humans do. It’s personification bias.
The key difference is that roguelikes lack the meta progression that roguelites have. Rogue and friends didn’t have meta progression.
So hades is a roguelite, not a roguelike.
It’s a well known distinction.
Common Lisp has the loop macro which is fairly imperative.
It also has a really great OOP implementation in CLOS
Lisp need not be purely functional.
Not saying I disagree with your premise that errors can’t be corrected by using more and more tokens, but this argument is weird to me.
The model isn’t intentionally generating text. The kinds of “oh let me try a different approach” lines I see are often followed by the same approach just taken. I wouldn’t say most of the time, but often enough that I notice.
Just because a model generates text doesn’t mean that the text actually represents anything at all, let alone a reflection of an internal process.
I’ve spent days fixing issues after updating my system.
Linux is great, but it has many pain points, as does windows.
I don’t really think either is strictly less finicky or painful than another as long as you’re willing to learn a bit.
If you’re not willing to learn a bit, windows is definitely was.
Linux will always be cooler though.
Is this true? My understanding of communism is that everyone contributes to the community with their labor (thus the name communism)
The ultimate ideal is to have a society which does that on their own (imo something utopian and impossible in reality), but I always thought the goal was to guarantee a minimum standard of living via shared labor and wealth.
Most people aren’t on the lookout for every reduction in freedom and, at least in the US, we have surprisingly few institutional and/or powerful guards against the erosion of freedoms.
IMO it’s because so many people in large companies want to avoid ownership and responsibility.
It’s like that old saying “nobody got fired for contracting IBM.”
Nobody gets fired for going with intrusive DRM. It’s good for the company!
My understanding of Valve is that it’s a small-ish high-ownership company.
Audio driver issues.
Graphics driver issues.
WiFi driver issues.
but I still like Linux more than windows.
Imagine if Facebook didn’t come along and we had 20 years of development and improvements over those base protocols instead of today’s social platforms.
This seems pretty in line with anarchy.
I know that in the US “libertarians” tend to be fairly right leaning, but I don’t think that “libertarian” means “republican”
Maybe the confusion is just over semantics.
Packaging python on nix is a big pain tho.
But I’m not an expert on this topic.
How is anarchy not the extreme libertarian position?
How so?
Communism, as a state, requires rules. By that virtue, it’s not anarchy.
Communism as the utopian ideal I suppose could be considered anarchy, but in reality that would never happen, so IMO not really worth discussing.
When I’ve worked at shops that made products I, personally, didn’t care about, it was always satisfying to see a customer be excited about a feature or be thankful for the tool I’m building.
The first time that happened was when an admin thanked me in a support ticket for speeding up the generation of expense report spreadsheets way back.
How could you enforce communism under anarchy?
What? No it’s not.
Anarchy is the extreme libertarian position. The smallest possible form of governance is anarchy.
The extreme left is total communism, where everything is controlled in order to ensure a minimum standard of living.
In practice it’s, apparently, hard to notice when they’re under attack.