ddj231

3 positives from a degree are:

1. the complete demystification of computing. If you’re writing c or assembly and working on OS concepts there’s a sort of aha moment that the computer is not a mystery.

2. The degree pushes you past the hump where a lot of folks get stuck on when learning to program. There’s a seeming spot where things makes sense and you actually understand what’s going on. Forcing yourself to stick with it for 4 years where you’re taught by experts is helpful for that.

3. It gives you a space to explore a wide array of topics. Whether they are useful to an employer or not.

I assume folks can accomplish these 3 on their own. But it would be more or less building your own balanced curriculum and also trusting as you start that your curriculum will work. Whereas within the school system the trust is baked in: if you successfully complete these assignments you will learn foundational concepts.

My view is that these sorts of things are not possible for AI in general. Though we can create things and name them “will” and “desire”.

Software deals with metaphors. Your Amazon shopping cart is a metaphor of a real shopping cart. You your desktop and your file system, etc. are metaphors of real items. But we don’t mistake the metaphor for its object, even from inanimate objects to their software counterparts (shopping cart to Amazon cart).

Now the metaphors are dealing with humanness, things like intelligence etc. And rather than seeing it as software doing what it always does, taking things and creating software metaphors of them, we are starting to say these are actually what they are named. Saying the artificial intelligence is actually an intelligence.

We’d either have to reduce the definition of intelligence such that calculators are intelligent. Or admit that these tools are not intelligent and are rather ways of exploring the work of actual intelligent beings, work that is found in their training data.

I see this line of reasoning quite a bit and it’s a strange one to me. The arguer reduces the sheer complexity of human intelligence and language by saying “we are just running statistical models in our brains” and by doing so makes the leap that Llms are intelligent. It’s an incredible simplification of the human person, who has a deep inner life, a soul, desires, and a will.

I don’t think the aversion to llms as intelligent has to do with the economics of paying intelligent agents more. I’d argue that it’s more fundamental than that. Humans are incredibly complex, and the world of sharing invisible things called knowledge, and the intelligent persons consuming such things which has been going on for thousands of years is far more rich than these synthetic outputs.

When it comes down to it the ai has no inner life, its is dead. A useful coding tool sure. But I wouldn’t call it intelligent.

One side example is just how bad these llms are at artistry. Just saying whatever should statically come next is not good art—and the outputs show it.

Not meaningless because part of the discussion is the issue of anthropomorphizing this tech. When we use language like “intelligent” it carries hints of personhood. People begin sadly treating these things as persons.

We can reap the benefits while clearly telling the consumer this is just a language algorithm.

By that logic you’d have to call other algorithms intelligent.

With more basic algorithms we know that it’s clearly the human programmer and the interpreter of the outputs that are intelligent and not the algorithm itself. For some reason with AI that goes out the window. I believe it should not.

seems OP is not talking about compensation of the deal itself but rather compensation for the actual flight rather than a $100 voucher. Assuming his flight to Brazil was much more than that

what’s the moat for lovable? you can already directly prompt these models to build you a full fledged app. Sure it saves you some db setup and deployment but is that enough of a product?

also who knows if prolonged ai development for years actually doesn't atrophy your coding muscles so to speak such that you are fully reliant on ai programming to get things done

Maybe what these llms open up is the ability to create personal tools to get xyz job done, rather than creating companies with polished products. Perhaps for the latter you'd still need some combination of team, timing, etc.

But the question of should I spin up my own website in a few minutes or use wordpress for my blog is now open. Your personal tools can compete with what's out there and you may decide what you build in one session is more compelling than what the "pros" are offering.

And for personal tools you are much more forgiving for the mistakes if it gets whatever task you want done.

Isn’t it different with student loan forgiveness, because the money isn’t coming out of thin air but rather taxation?

To add to this, LLMs write pretty trite poetry, for example. If we think of code from the creative side, it’s hard to imagine that we’d want to simply hand all coding over to these systems. Even if we got working solutions (which is a major undertaking for large systems), it seems we’d be sacrificing elegance, novelty, and I’d argue more interesting explorations.

I wonder if this has any connection to the appeal of rap music, and rap as a medium for spreading a message.

The issue is that even in your framing “…’nothing’ at any point in time…” is at odds with the Big Bang theory which says time had a beginning. How do you conceive what was there ‘before’ the universe came to existence? (In the absence of matter, space, time and energy)

The question is the launch off point for exploration. Just because a question is philosophical in nature does not mean it cannot be answered or that there’s no point in asking.

And replace it with what? The scary part of suggestions of “tear it all down” is how do we know that the replacement will be any better? In the grand scheme of things the West is in a state of abundance and luxury. Much more so than the communist experiments ever achieved. Additionally global poverty has been trending down for decades. While global literacy has greatly increased.

The key strength of a free-market seems to be that it assumes people will act in their own self interest and it creates a space where we can a get a roughly ‘win-win’ situation. That while you act in your self interest both you and the community are rewarded. So starting a bakery would give you a financial reward and others baked goods at a competitive price. Assuming that changing the system will force people to stop acting in their self interest seems to be how alternatives go wrong.

The end user expects some connection between “buying a Lego” and buying digital content. We use metaphors such as “a cart” or “add to your library” that make a user think this is just like buying from a store bringing something home — it is in my library. If we aren’t going to keep these metaphors true, we should stop using them. It’s not in “my library”, it’s more like an amusement park I have perpetual access to until it one day closes.

But in the dvd case you don’t expect someone to effectively repossess your dvd a couple years down the road without reimbursing you. You don’t own the content but you do own your dvd which allows you to indefinitely watch the content.

I know we are a bit off topic. It seems it would be more like if several prominent followers of Jesus committed mass genocide in their respective countries within a century of his teachings. Stalin is considered Marxist-Leninist.

This article gives a clear view on Marx’s vs. Engel’s view of Utopianism vs. other utopian socialists [1]. That Marx was not opposed to utopianism per se, but rather when the ideas of the utopia did not come from the proletariat. Yet you’re right in that he was opposed to the view of the other utopian socialist, and there is tension in the views of the different socialist thinkers in that time. (I do disagree on the idea that refusing to propose an ideal negates one from in practice having a utopic vision)

That said my comment was looking mainly at the result of Marxist ideology in practice. In practice millions of lives were lost in an attempt to create an idealized world. Here is a good paper on Stalin’s utopian ideal [2].

[1] https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7312/chro17958.7?searchText=...

[2] https://www.jstor.org/stable/3143688?seq=1

It seems like an observation to me. Let’s take the Marxist utopian ideology. It led to 40 - 60 million dead in the Soviet Union (Gulag Archipelago is an eye opening read). And 40 - 80 million dead in Mao Zedong’s China. It’s hard to even wrap my mind around that amount of people dead.

Then a smaller example in Matthia’s cult in the “Kingdom Of Matthias” book. Started around the same time as Mormonism. Which led to a murder. Or the Peoples Temple cult with 909 dead in mass suicide. The communal aspects of these give away their “utopian ideology”

I’d like to hear where you’re coming from. I have a Christian worldview, so when I look at these movements it seems they have an obvious presupposition on human nature (that with the right systems in place people will act perfectly — so it is the systems that are flawed not the people themselves). Utopia is inherently religious, and I’d say it is the human desire to have heaven on earth — but gone about in the wrong ways. Because humans are flawed, no economic system or communal living in itself can bring about the utopian ideal.

It seems like an endless cycle. It was said that Trump’s win was rigged via Russian collusion. Then that Biden’s win was rigged via voter fraud. So seemingly every election will be considered “rigged”

It seems this fundamentally misunderstands human value. The value of a human is not whether they provide more resources than they consume. Imagine applying this to others, or a government systematically ridding citizens that are net negative. That would be a horrible genocide.

This again reveals the wisdom of very basic biblical truths, like “all men are made in the image of God”. Meaning all humans have value, a special value different from animals and plants

Interesting list. It’s striking that there are 10 rules, in a way taking the framework of the 10 commandments.

I’d say this set is weaker, in that it seems to reenforce a bit of self-centeredness and says little to nothing about loving your neighbor. Whereas the 10 commandments are summed up as love God and love your neighbor — both outward focusing. With dos and don’ts that are all outward facing, ex. Do not steal, do not covet, do not bear false witness, honor your mother and father.

That said #6 “‘There’ is no better than ‘here’” is a good reminder. A parallel to “do not covet your neighbor’s house, or your neighbor’s wife, or anything that is your neighbor’s” (paraphrase)

That’s a strange way to explain away Moses’ encounter with God (what is written), seeing as according to the text it occurred many times without the burning bush present. See Exodus 33 on the tent of meeting.

Reading in psychedelics into the text is eisegesis rather than exegesis (reading in the interpreters bias into the text rather than discerning the original author’s intent).

Loving your UIs for these projects, they have a nice minimal aesthetic. What's your tech stack if you don't mind me asking, seems Svelte for frontend?

But it seems to be more an observation of the world rather than a human construct. When we look out at the world we see causes and effects. The “why” in this case is asking what is the cause(s) of a subset of effects

I agree with you on the point that the different world religions make mutually exclusive claims about the afterlife. Ultimately the only way to know what happens after death is to have an authoritative eyewitness. I personally don’t count NDE’s because we have to get into the question of what is truly “dead” (and also gauge the truthfulness of the individuals spiritual experience — that is if they are more than hallucinations)

I take the position that Jesus is that authoritative eye witness — the whole Christian religion hinges on that. I find his claims, the historical documents, and eye witness testimony that’s been preserved from the 1st century too compelling.

There is no evidence of Sagan’s theory though, that in death we will be in a long dreamless sleep. In fact, I would argue that the beauties of this life (suggested in his quote) point to an afterlife. To say that our experience here has much love and moral depth, leads one to ponder, why is there anything at all? And on top of that, why do morals and love exist? And why are these things good? The Christian perspective is that “the heavens declare the glory of God”, extrapolated to this discussion, the very things we marvel at in this life should lead to pondering what lies beyond.

This is far more nuance than I remember in public schools. At a young age there is quite a bit of rote memorization of facts. Sure parents can supplement their child’s education, but at the end of the day the child will be forced to adopt the schools viewpoint on certain perspective as the “correct” answer — or suffer in their grades

Well after procreation comes child rearing. We don’t abandon human children to the wild.

I don’t believe the benefits of monogamous marriage are simply cultural. One would have to pose a better ideal for generating and raising children (because nurturing the next generation is a key part of societal survival) that leads to human flourishing. Is it polygamy, or casual hookups, or absentee fathers?

That said I do think there is more to the marriage relationship than procreation. That 2 people are becoming one. With that comes life long friendship bound by a vow that weathers the storms of life, close intimacy etc.