drekipus

Chinese are human.

Our only reference point with an alien philosophy would be that we can only approach it from human basis

I think that's kind of what I'm trying to say.

"A philosophy of LLMs" - has no reference point without being grounded in human experience.

It is only meaningful when we apply what it means to humans.

"a philosophy of a bash script." does not make sense. Only "philosophy of the action of writing the bash script, of which this is an artifact of" - the human who wrote it intentionally.

LLMs apply statistics to mash inputs and produce outputs, almost like `cat` with extra steps: We can't ask for "what was the philosophy behind the action `cat` applied" - why would we bother asking about the philosophy of an LLM? Better questions would be the philosophy of those who prompt it, built it, the material that went into it, the people who write the safeguards, the people who architected it. Etc.

It is not an isolated environment without reference points.

I suggest you print out this exchange and spend a week away from the computer, then re-read what was printed.

I'm not trying to be rude but I gave you the answers. Alien philosophy is irrelevant to us because we're not aliens. Tree philosophy is irrelevant to us because we're not trees. Dolphin philosophy is irrelevant to us because we're not dolphins, etc.

Everything else you mentioned is "hallucinatory" and you need to probably have a break from screens for a while.

As a legitimate exercise, go ponder the philosophy of a bash script. Think about philosophy of trees in a forest vs trees in a plantation. You'll find it and see how silly you're being

I think you're trying to degrade the entire school of philosophy down to your "philosophy 101" understanding and then shoving it where it doesn't fit in order to feel like this is all complicated.

Philosophy is a intrinsically human thing. It has to be. That is the whole point. There really is nothing else.

Plants feel and experience things too. But there's no philosophy of the plant experience from the point of view of the plant, because why would there be?

The fact that we have a pattern recognizing word generator print out the words "I am alive" does not lead to some broader philosophical point, except for hysteria and delusions, which probably fit more along sociology instead.

LLMs don't experience because they are word generators. They don't have senses.

Some things are allowed to be obvious. It's a series of bits and bytes.

Israel

"Millions of deaths don't matter if we can save just one." is an increasingly common take.

>The desire to "not waste money" and "get back to even" seems like a huge part of what motivates gamblers to keep gambling.

As someone who had family members go through gambling addiction this is the primary mechanism behind it.

Addicts don't see it as "cool fun dopamine kicks" but instead find it the only way they can get back to normal/where they are supposed to be

Thankfully, suprisingly not. US maybe

I still have not found sources for the 30-thousand that hasn't come from Israel-affiliated or Israel-friendly media

Try experiencing it yourself firsthand, first

He said it. Ants are just economic units and easily squishable/replaceable.

I don't think anyone is adding anything to it.

Why not both. That's my approach.

Also stretching and mobility training.. using a split keyboard has been awesome because you really feel the difference compared to a "normal" keyboard once you've been paying attention to opening up the shoulders

There is no real difference

Now is not the time for satire

Putting it simply:

* Your AI girlfriend isn't real

* "You're correct" is a statistical occurrence, not evidence that you are or are not correct.

* Llm can do "bad things" because it just does things. Statistics has no right or wrong.

world's most obvious honeypot

How is it different to the first line of the article? "Canadian scientists have made a significant advance in understanding the mechanisms that enable embryos to properly form their limbs"

The biggest problem for me is that I can't find a simple way to get started with Coalton.

I'm not a common lisp user, but I want to be. I want to learn common lisp, and I have a fair understanding of types. I think types can benefit the user in understanding more, as well as the inbuilt "intelligence" - (aka: How am I meant to know ahead of time that I can't add these two objects together? Having the editor tell me as I'm writing is a great step)

I have "mine" their text editor, now I just need some tutorials and sample projects to go with it.

To control the "non elite"

I'm keeping the dream alive!

No no no it's speed at all costs. Sure. I'm writing junk but the speed of what I'm doing is *impressive* You don't understand.

> I'm a good programmer, and it speeds up my work a lot,

Whenever I see this arguement, I'm reminded that most programmers don't know what they do for work

Technically it would classify as a real honeypot site I'd think

8 bit themed web games

It's actually rumoured to be part of HL3, which is why they had to block it because of their agreement with valve

Hopefully the whole world

I'm interested in how you're probing for them?

I haven't needed to change jobs but I'm worried that one day I'll have to

> If that was the case, code completion and templating would have been a revolutionary, world changing development in the field.

And yet this is "AI is world changing, look at how fast it can change code!"

> So while you still try to navigate through files, others already have features out.

Your argument is "it can also read code faster too" - but it doesn't have the same tacit knowledge within the codebase. Documentation and comments can be wrong sometimes. Names are poorly chosen

That's the thing about reviews: the implementor doesn't know what's needed for the feature, but the reviewer now needs to. The latter can't trust the former anymore.

/Explain is constantly wrong. /Plan is constantly over engineered. /Tests are constantly fragile

The only benefit AI has produced to existing codebase is now people care a lot more about getting documentation right and adding little snippet/how-tos called "skills" or whatever.

> that code is probably only ever supposed to be LLM maintained, not by people.

But LLMs are trying to mimic people. So if confusion is the human response, what's to stop the llm from acting confused?