140 karma · joined August 1, 2012
https://www.linkedin.com/in/alex-carver/
Building https://saus.io/
----
All the best with it!
P.S. It would also be interesting to see how far it's possible to go with constexpr etc.
But do you think it would be possible to achieve similar results without a new language, but with a declarative API in one of your existing languages (say, C++) instead?
If possible, that would remove a big adoption barrier, and avoid inevitably reinventing many language features.
If you love control and have control, why would you want to create fertile ground for startups?
(This was meant as devil's advocate, not my personal point of view).
I’m not sure there is any point trying to do what you can in parametric software in Blender. Despite both being capable of a range of 3D tasks, they have remarkably little in common.
I don't disagree: I just posited that there are other ways to satisfy it, and that there is an opportunity cost to the path you've chosen to satisfy it that you don't seem very aware of, because your curiosity and desire to be correct are tightly coupled - but that doesn't actually have to be the case. It has its pros and cons.
Now I'm more of an "it's the journey not the destination" guy, so accelerating the journey doesn't appeal to me as much as it used to, because for me its where I get the most value. That change in my perspective is what motivated me to comment.
But anyway, you clearly enjoy it and do great work, so all the best with it!
Alternatively, you could have spent that half hour on the train exercising your own creativity to try and satisfy your curiosity. Whether you're right or wrong doesn't really matter, because as you acknowledge it's not really important enough to you to matter. Picking (2) eliminates all the possible avenues that might have lead you down.
I'm not saying one is better than the other, just that you're approaching the criticism on the basis of axioms that represent a narrow viewpoint: That of someone who has to be "right" about the things they are curious about, no matter how trivial.
So to say they haven't done "the same kind of homework yet" seems quite presumptive. Only Google has done anything remotely similar with TPUs and certainly not on the deployment scale that Apple has done.
FWIW I don't care either way, I don't get emotionally attached to corporations, I just think the entire framing of the original post is very reactionary and naive, and I continue to think that the comparison with Toyota is an apt way to illustrate that.
I don’t see how there can be a single truth when there is not even a single definition of many of the underlying terms (intelligence, AGI, etc) which this discipline supposedly defines itself by. Combine that with a lot of people with little philosophical perspective suddenly being confronted with philosophical topics and you end up with a discourse that personally I’ve mostly given up on participating in until things calm down again.
It feels like nobody remembers all the timelines for which we were supposed to have self-driving cars.
Perhaps revalidate the "thriving economy" assertion before taking the plunge though (and be mindful of how hyper-localised that is).
Quality of life is inherently tied to trust and morality - both in terms of the effect of fear (a lack of trust) or isolation (a lack of moral consensus, or equality and sense of shared belonging).
The point is just that it's a tale as old as human civilization itself. It would be disappointing if we've not yet learnt enough from our history to avoid more change via trauma.