js8

20 ms·

1.
by js8 3d ago
It's basically a convention. The alternative is to raise interrupts of course, but that might be application specific, or use other invalid instructions than the designated one, but they might work differently on other processor types.
2.
by js8 4d ago
Philosophy yes, but Dennett's design vs intentional stance is a more appropriate tool here. Design stance is, LLM is a next word predictor. Intentional stance is, LLM can reason, according to what rules?
3.
by js8 5d ago
Graeber actually points out that centrally-planned economies had formally higher work hours than was the reality (people slacked off more), and that it was akin to workers collectively making a choice working less for the overall lower prod
4.
by js8 6d ago
I originally read the headline as "Silicon Valley Is Transforming Military-Industrial Complex".
5.
by js8 6d ago
Is Microsoft still trying to embrace, extend, extinguish Netscape after all those years? :-)
6.
by js8 7d ago
No, the term itself is not stigmatizing. People stigmatize legitimate psychiatric diagnoses, and you're perpetuating this idea in your comment, by blaming the term for the moral failure. These labels don't exists to stigmatize peo
7.
by js8 7d ago
I was bound to agree with you before I RTFA. The classification is useful for a psychiatrist, i.e. someone who wants to help the person. "Bad coworker" can have many causes. In prolific AI psychosis, I think the assumption (differ
8.
by js8 7d ago
> Maybe you can upgrade digital systems until they are 'fully fortified' in theory, but humans have an upper limit what they can understand / perceive / critically analyse (not to even speak about engineered high pres
9.
by js8 8d ago
Not to mention, the idea that Germany, 3rd or 4th largest economy on Earth, cannot defend itself on its own and needs American troops "to defend itself" is just ridiculous. The Americans are there as a front of US empire (IIRC Ram
10.
by js8 8d ago
It's not clear if it is foolish. The situation will probably be like with airline pilots. The plane is mostly an automated system, but we simply don't let automation to work through exceptional situations, without human review. Th
11.
by js8 12d ago
The "next-token predictor" is taking a design stance (see Dennett). But to take the intentional stance is more interesting in case of large language/reasoning models.
12.
by js8 13d ago
No, it's not a problem. The suppliers cannot keep increasing the prices to match UBI, because they will face increased competition from people who now have other options (more freedom) thanks to UBI. For example, let's say I buy v
13.
by js8 13d ago
The US GDP per capita is 94k a year. The average salary is 69k a year; this is a proxy for the price of labor. So you can easily have 20k UBI for everyone in the US, the country is rich enough.
14.
by js8 14d ago
No, you cannot say the same about computers, because the technology is almost never the problem. The problem is cultural. The deregulation since the 70s created oligarchs and encouraged lack of moral scruples. See also https://ne
15.
by js8 14d ago
Of course you can! It's called boycott. The workers who strike in a factory don't do that because they think the thing being produced is being socially useless. They do it because they demand social change.
16.
by js8 14d ago
You should ask the billionaires about "dignity of work", they are the welfare queens. And also about "independence" on the people who work for them. What you're saying is just classist prejudice.
17.
by js8 14d ago
I don't understand what you're saying. I agree that food insecurity could be fixed; it's a redistribution problem. UBI is a way to fix it. But I don't see how we are forcing people to be low class with UBI (as opposed to
18.
by js8 14d ago
"I don't think everyone except the extremely wealthy being on basic income is ideal or better than what we have now" Seriously? One sixth of the U.S. population is food-insecure. You don't think that basic income would f
19.
by js8 14d ago
Yeah. But, unlike China, the West doesn't seem to want to invest very much into real-world engineering. Except maybe military for forever wars, which is ethically way worse. This is a side effect of capital accumulation. There's n
20.
by js8 14d ago
I was about to say, it's not just IT industry, it's capitalism leading to this.
21.
by js8 17d ago
Yes, you can express everything using lambda calculus. Kinda.. so why not use a thing that already exists? Why invent a new language (encapsulation) when previous (binding) suffices?
22.
by js8 17d ago
That relates to another misunderstanding. These ideas like "everything is a function" or "everything is a category" are not there to help you understand complex system better. They are supposed to help you build better f
23.
by js8 17d ago
Well, I just wrote a comment that could be considered an "OOP hate". I was debating whether to do it. The point is not to be snug about it. Functional programming (and monads) are actually simpler. You just need to resist the urge
24.
by js8 17d ago
Well, what I don't understand is the SW engineering propensity towards cargo culting and doing things the harder way than mathematicians do. I see it with OOP, XML, design patterns, and other things, now with LLMs. (LLMs - you really w
25.
by js8 21d ago
What are your arguments for a ban? Why do you expect someone to listen if you didn't provide a justification?
26.
by js8 22d ago
But the soldiers didn't have the mobile phones then. This was possible by manipulation the information about reality those soldiers had. For example, how Mallory can gain power over Alice and Bob who don't directly communicate. Fi
27.
by js8 23d ago
Fair enough, let's say that happens. But what we're gonna manage the codebase in, then? What kind of language? Will it be a natural language, or a formal one? I feel that "coding" cannot collapse. Coding is just translat
28.
by js8 27d ago
Kinda pointless, because a) I am already convinced that P=NP b) You have to convince many other people as well (that you're a magic oracle), because for the effect to work, lot of people would have to work on the problem (or at least s
29.
by js8 27d ago
"But seemingly models good at programming for example, would get worse at programming if you removed everything not-programming. Train a model solely on syntax, and it'll be worse than a general purpose LLM on syntax, in general a
30.
by js8 28d ago
I partly agree. Theory (of computation) shows it must be possible, however nobody has produced the small model (well, depends who you ask, what is small, article disputes that) and the database yet. To go very small (thousands of rules) so

More ›