jarpschop

11 ms·

1.
by jarpschop 2y ago
I don't think Turing knew about the existence of the lambda calculus when he wrote the paper. It was later that he decided to study his PhD under Church and move to Princeton.
2.
by jarpschop 3y ago
A year ago he said that language models would never be able to explain why if you move a table, the bottle on top of it would not fall. He definitely had no idea what was coming with LLMs. And now he is arrogant enough to say "we all k
3.
by jarpschop 3y ago
I have been thinking a lot about it recently and I do think they are significant. If you look for example at chagpt4, it achieves a certain sort of intelligence. It gives you many sensible responses. The thing Is that this is basically what
4.
by jarpschop 3y ago
This should be a required reading for everyone at OpenAI. If such simple programs can fool even intelligent people, I can't imagine what an infinitely more capable gpt4 will be able to achieve socially. As Yuval Harari correctly points
5.
by jarpschop 3y ago
I find Python and Haskell both very elegant.
6.
by jarpschop 5y ago
People would get hooked to that worse than heroin lol. I recently fell for a girl and being without her definitely felt like having abstinence syndrome. I was obsessively and relentlessly thinking about her every waking second.
7.
by jarpschop 5y ago
Sure, as more time goes on and the thing starts to become more evident. It will become clearer that bringing a human being into a dying world is a deeply immoral thing to do. It will not be soon though.
8.
by jarpschop 5y ago
A being is conscious if and only if it feels like something to be that being. What you're referring to is self-consciousness. Goldfish are most surely conscious but not self-conscious.
9.
by jarpschop 5y ago
That doesn't sound dystopian at all. Got to love capitalism!
10.
by jarpschop 5y ago
Throughout history, people have always avoided naturalism, almost at any cost. I think that this in part has to do with the crude reality it implies, it a very hard pill to swallow to anyone who understands it well. However, time and again,
11.
by jarpschop 5y ago
Nietzsche said the same thing as Schopenhauer, that reading too much may make you stupid in the end; and for the same reasons.
12.
by jarpschop 5y ago
I always wonder. That has to be unsustainable, there is no way everybody can be borrowing like hell even for simple consumption and not having that collapse one moment.
13.
by jarpschop 5y ago
Of course, there is already an endless number of guns on people hands and basements. The fact that the US is the rich country with the highest murder rate is all the proof one needs that tighter gun laws make for a safer place.
14.
by jarpschop 5y ago
I work at a very large software company (which you know of) that has a corporate O'Reilly subscription and it was mentioned recently that DDIA was the most read book of the org.
15.
by jarpschop 5y ago
Great book! I went trough it to better understand Turing's paper. The annotations in it and remarks of Turing's bugs help clarify a bunch of stuff. I would bet that the original reviewers of the paper had no idea what Turing what
16.
by jarpschop 5y ago
They will. People are already dying of climate change.
17.
by jarpschop 5y ago
I hope fertility rates plummet because of this and population goes downhill fast. I can't see how people are deciding to have kids knowing how unaffordable everything is becoming.
18.
by jarpschop 5y ago
The difference with revelation is that climate change is real. It is happening and will continue to happen.
19.
by jarpschop 5y ago
Sure, but there you have an argument against economic libertarianism (no taxes) in any case.
20.
by jarpschop 5y ago
Natural selection is a very powerful process.
21.
by jarpschop 5y ago
I prefer code in the end because the flexibility is provides. At the end, a bunch of edge cases and weird situations that can't be handled by the simplified solution will arise, and in those situations having a complete programming lan
22.
by jarpschop 5y ago
It wouldn't surprise me to see humanity go extinct a few hundred years from now.
23.
by jarpschop 5y ago
Endless growth on a finite planet is an impossibility. A reasonable population size is more conducive to a good quality of life for everyone.
24.
by jarpschop 5y ago
You're certainly not an iOS developer.
25.
by jarpschop 6y ago
The USA wants the monopoly on spying people. They don't like competition!
26.
by jarpschop 6y ago
You don’t need to have intelligence. Intelligence is just a form of fitness, but other species have had ecological hyper-fitness before (look at what happened with rabbits in Australia). All of them display the same behavior: massive growth
27.
by jarpschop 6y ago
This way of living, with that many people on the planet is not sustainable. We are on a runaway train to extinction and we want it to go faster. The economy!
28.
by jarpschop 9y ago
When I see a post like this I just remember this plot. No matter how much wealth is produced if it is shared unequally. https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQyTbD6...
29.
by jarpschop 9y ago
All those Silicon Valley startup bros would be loving capitalism. It gives you the highest standard of living in history!
30.
by jarpschop 9y ago
Sorry for asking the pessimistic question, by no means do i intend to be a troll, but don't you think that it is irresponsible bringing children in to a world where you can't even take the free evenings after working 8+ hours and

More ›