scott_weber

And here I at first thought the direction the original post was going was "here's how I got a LLM to do this automatically". Seems like it would not be so difficult. Might still be be a win over their innate dispositions.

My read of "manufacture a huge amount of products" was that it's not even about software. America is still the world's second largest manufacturing economy, and per capita produces more than China!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing

Most of this manufacturing is just not consumer facing.

So labour doesn't really scale. It's measured in hours, and you only get so many of those in a week.

If you're using "scale your labour" to mean "scale your output". Well, two cases: your selling your labour as an employee, or your output directly. Either way: the market won't value them above their cost of substitution, which is just the cost of substitution of your original, non AI labour, plus the cost of the AI (an ever cheaper commodity).

Very convenient, if you're someone who benefits from this arrangement, to be able to tell yourself that a brute numerical fact (if you profit off others labour, there must be those whose labour is profited off of) just so happens to by divine coincidence to go hand in hand with the profiteers just happening to have some nebulous quality that morally justifies the whole arrangement.

The difference might be the immense cost of physical infrastructure needed for AI training. People would make open source contributions for free, TSMC, NVIDIA and power companies seems less likely to make free contributions to AI.

Sponge delays the overwriting of the input file, so its not trying to read and write quinedb at the same time.

(FirstName, LastName) is probably not a very good UNIQUE KEY.

The numbers are correct, but it was written in an odd way. Grovers algorithm gives a speedup of sqrt(n), so the exponent gets halved.

Not sure if I'm labouring under basic misconception here (or if you're trolling). First, you note that BPP <= P/poly. Secondly, you note that it is hard to prove P = BPP, but this is not necessary, all we need is the trivial P <= BPP. Then P <= P/poly < NP (if the author is correct).

Perhaps Bret Victor's ideas are comparable to something like formal methods: few doubt their enormous power, but the difficulty is in the extreme effort one needs to implement them in a project. It is tempting to believe that the level of instrumentation that Bret proposes could be achieved automatically, just as it was once dreamed that formal methods could be fully automatic. But experience with formal methods has shown us that while some of their promise can be implemented by automatic tools, and this is valuable, to realize their full potential for a complex project requires substantial effort, non-reusable effort.