davemp

5 ms·

1.
by davemp 4d ago
Maybe it’s wishful thinking on my behalf, but I am still not convinced that LLMs are on a path to SciFi levels of apocalyptic malicious super intelligence. Rather LLMs at some level are just all of the humanity’s information rendered access
2.
by davemp 4d ago
AI at least with its current compute and data requirements seems structurally undemocratic to me.
3.
by davemp 1mo ago
Completely unrealistic. We could already be working toward such goals without super intelligent AI. I don’t see any reason to assume that ASI created through an evolutionary process would have a different outcome. If ASI ended up being alig
4.
by davemp 1mo ago
I couldn’t help but notice the parent commenter’s post history. Account from literally before this was called HN, one comment 6 years later, then 13 years later this comment. The pro lisp/s expression comments check out.
5.
by davemp 1mo ago
> legacy choices when we quite literally were just not smart enough to be making permanent decisions like this Unnecessary hubris. I assure you the original ABI authors were plenty smart and just faced a different set of problems. > O
6.
by davemp 1mo ago
It should be embarrassing and shameful to apply for such a trivial patent.
7.
by davemp 1mo ago
> A 1963 house is what we'd think of today as a starter home. Not every house at that time was a post war levitown style shack. AC wasn’t even terribly uncommon in 1960s construction.
8.
by davemp 2mo ago
Great for rich people or just not your relative purchasing power being completely eroded. Why work for a 5% raise if it means all your expenses go up 5%?
9.
by davemp 2mo ago
> That's not remotely true. Or, more formally speaking since we're in a thread about proof assistants, it's not remotely true, up to extensional equality, plus some choices about which axioms you use. Really unnecessary le
10.
by davemp 2mo ago
Cool. Now we can write bugs in our theorem descriptions instead of source code. Seriously, please review Curry Howard Isomorphism if you’re getting pulled down this rabbit hole. Programs are proofs. Proofs are programs. So if you can formal
11.
by davemp 2mo ago
> No one is going to argue against those vague statements. He obviously does not agree with people that put more weight on making things compile errors instead of runtime errors >> Compile errors are better than runtime crashes I d
12.
by davemp 2mo ago
Looks like Mr. Kelly agrees with you. From the zen of zig: - Runtime crashes are better than bugs. - Compile errors are better than runtime crashes. - Incremental improvements. - Avoid local maximums. Considering every memory safe language
13.
by davemp 2mo ago
Without explicitly entering the language holy wars. I think there’s an interesting trade-off here. Static analysis based approaches restrict what is possible to express in the language (See: doubly linked lists). But can have lower dynamic
14.
by davemp 2mo ago
I don’t think people are arguing to stop researching AGI. Moreso against sales people trying to use the concept of AGI to sell products that are very much not AGI. Or devoting so many of our resources into such a pursuit that it causes harm
15.
by davemp 2mo ago
> clueless and stubborn and confidently wrong Uhuh. I really shouldn’t be replying to this type of comment from a throwaway. But the extremely powerful semantic search that we get from LLMs isn’t enough. I don’t think anyone is credibly
16.
by davemp 2mo ago
There is a vast gulf between theoretically possible and technologically feasible. If you can’t provide a realistic path to achieve something, you’re asking people to believe in science fiction. You could tell me that a rock’s molecules are
17.
by davemp 2mo ago
Totally insane that they enshrine this stuff in law without a reference design and corresponding data to validate its effectiveness.
18.
by davemp 2mo ago
Yeah I think that’s the difference. On the east coast in July, the big safety risk with fireworks is generally to your own person.
19.
by davemp 2mo ago
EDA tools have been using ML techniques for >10yrs afaik
20.
by davemp 3mo ago
It definitely isn’t simple, but it’s a pretty well trod path. If the FCC or state equivalent doesn’t have folks who can write the spec that’s a huge problem. I would be surprised if an existing spec doesn’t already exist that just needs to
21.
by davemp 3mo ago
Article reeks of LLM mannerisms in a pretty obnoxious way. I read it anyways and surprise surprise, it boils down to: - Ridiculously NP problem space that we guess and check with ML heuristics. - Problem: not enough training data Cool enoug
22.
by davemp 3mo ago
Picking up on some dunning kruger effect here. Programming isn’t even a field in the same way as prob&stats. Computer science does in fact have non-deterministic sub fields such as information theory.
23.
by davemp 3mo ago
Just because it could be worse doesn’t mean it couldn’t be better.
24.
by davemp 3mo ago
> Would you want to take a pay cut if your employer was having financial problems? This happens constantly in the form of layoffs…
25.
by davemp 3mo ago
Ah yes. Just need to displace 16 million people’s livelihoods. No big deal.
26.
by davemp 3mo ago
I assume because most windows installs are corporate IT garbage that if anyone cared about performance they could just turn off one of the three endpoint protection services or tune the backup service down and get better results than proces
27.
by davemp 4mo ago
> One third of all software code is written by AI. I find it interesting that using lines of code as a metric is making a comeback.
28.
by davemp 4mo ago
I’m pretty certain there are physiological limits that you can’t just muscle through and stress _can_ be an indicator that you’re reaching said limits.
29.
by davemp 4mo ago
usage != positive opinion I don’t like driving in traffic yet I do it pretty much every day. Why don’t I simply not drive?
30.
by davemp 4mo ago
Kind of goes to show how out of touch and insular the tech exec sphere can be. Almost everyone I interact with in reality has a deep distain for LLMs and their touted trajectory.

More ›