bob001

Have the AI find the slow parts of your code. Then have it find libraries that do that slow part fast (they're almost certainly in Rust/C++) since thats low hanging fruit. Then have it re-write any remaining slow parts in Rust with Py03. Eventually that hits a limit but hopefully by then you understand Rust enough or it's fast enough to not matter.

Are you arguing that JIT Python or GraalPy will be as performant in a reasonable time as Python on top of those C++/Rust libraries? If not then I don't think it matters since unless you are claiming that all the existing C++/Rust libraries can be re-written in reasonable time and with the same performance. Keep in mind that many of these libraries are using low level tricks to optimize performance. Python is the UI and while the UI is important in the end it's just the UI.

CICD and iterative development and agile work because interactive building leads to better product. Otherwise we'd all build perfect software using waterfall methodologies and release only once a year. If implementation is cheap then you implement, review and then re-implement. Not even iterate in the extreme case. Throw it away if needed and start from scratch if needed.

Specification is hard because you are trying to predict a future state in a vacuum. You need to do that because creating the product is very expensive coding wise. If instead you could instantly build to your current specification then you could iterate on the specification against a real product. Even if all that code is thrown out the end result would be a better specification.

That's an interesting analogy. My gut sense is that theoretical mathematics requires a high level of intelligence versus more grounded domains. That may imply that deficiency in grounding can be made up for with intelligence and basically reverse engineering the gaps in grounding from first principles/limited grounding. The ultimate question would then be what is the tradeoffs between grounding and raw intelligence for the same outcome.

I didn't make the analogy to railroads. I'm just pointing out that its a terrible one if you want to use it to argue against AI.

The irony of someone arguing against the industrial revolution while enjoying all its benefits is amusing.

To me that's not sustainable. It just brings in outside workers, distorts the economy in bad way for locals through increased costs, distorts their daily life in a bad way and then it all goes away leaving a void in its wake. Like the olympics.

> like a evil monster.

I tend to like not fearing starvation every year, not fearing freezing to death every year and not having the vast majority of my kids die. Industrialization led to all that.

City taxes don't fix a broken economic flywheel. State taxes go to others and also don't fix it. You need a functional economy with jobs, income, spending and all that jazz. A small amount of taxes with no second order benefits is worth relatively little.

> Do you have an encyclopedic knowledge of which terms are regulated and which ones aren't?

The solution is to ensure all common terms people expect in a daily shopping are covered. Thus why "beef patty" was covered. Sounds like you agree with the government on this one. Not covering it would make it confusing for people who would then need to keep track of which common terms are covered and which are not. Its a bit silly at times but as you noted yourself the alternative is even worse.

Some people know how to look up GDP per capita numbers.

> YCombinator and HN would run a "Slit your mommas throat as a service" if they though there were hockey stick growth profit.

While saying they're making the world a better place in the process. At least Wall Street sharks tend to be honest about their motivations and lack of giving a shit about you.

It used to be that living next to an airport was hell due to noise even without supersonic jets. Then they regulated noise levels and magically airplane companies started to find ways to mitigate noise levels. Such a coincidence that suddenly innovation just happened then and not ealirer. Who can guess why.

Just like Putin had Europe's best interest in mind regarding natural gas. At this point it's not a question of if Europe will become a puppet state but whose puppet state.

So basically "if they were only allowed to cause harm then maybe maybe one day they might have found a way to on their own for no profit stop doing that harm"? Yeah, no thank you. Also, all of corporate history shows that without a government or public pushback "will stop doing harm" never happens.

So most people not wanting to hear sonic booms to benefit a small group of high wealth fliers is bad?

Wall Street: We're making the most money no matter the consequences.

Silicon Valley: We're making the world a better place by making the most money no matter the consequences.

That describes all of human civilization and society. We pass knowledge and learnings to each other without needing to personally experience it. Language, writing, books, schools, universities, apprenticeships and so on are all shortcuts.

> regardless, it got me thinking about some kind of a potential implementation of a formal social reputation system that essentially mirrors what goes on informally now, but makes it visible and makes the actions of affecting somebody's reputation visible.

In general you can already get this by asking and taking feedback from others. I've seen a lot more people shoot or ignore the messenger in those cases then actually take the feedback. Everyone is the hero of their own story.

> social scoring and consequences and reputations rarely actually stem from one’s actions

In my experience, this viewpoint is most strong in people whose actions are the most direct cause of their social issues. Almost always these people strongly refuse to admit that their actions should or are under their control. At which point others start to avoid them.

There are large scale social stratifications due to various things however individuals live in a very wide band in my experience. Some make choices that put them at the top of that band and others make choices that put them at the bottom.

Let's take two of your examples:

> how much money someone has put in someone’s pocket

> who someone knows

Careers choices directly lead to having higher income and more money. Socializing and putting effort into building a social network gives you more people to know. Both are to a decent degree under someone's control and based on their actions. You claiming otherwise is exactly proving my point on people wanting an excuse for their poor historical actions.

>The details matter (training set, full context).

But you said:

>Training shifts the probability - but doesn't change the fact that the output is a sampling based on input and the model?

So which is it?

>You're essentially suggesting we play Turing's Guessing Game; if your LLM can guess my response to any prompt - then it can be said to have modeled how I would reply to those prompts. Expand the prompts far enough, and you could reasonably argue the LLM models me.

I'm merely noting that your argument that "training+input=>output is the problem" applies to humans. There's other arguments for and against LLMs however I'm simply pointing out that your argument isn't a good one.

So do humans more or less? The only counterpoints I've heard are religious or unmeasured quantum brain something.

You do realize this is an announcement of already fixed issues which were fixed (and not just flagged) weeks or months ago, right? Or are you claiming that Chinese models allow for time travel?

The linux kernel team disagrees with your approach but what do they know?

> Note, due to the layer at which the Linux kernel is in a system, almost any bug might be exploitable to compromise the security of the kernel, but the possibility of exploitation is often not evident when the bug is fixed. Because of this, the CVE assignment team is overly cautious and assign CVE numbers to any bugfix that they identify. This explains the seemingly large number of CVEs that are issued by the Linux kernel team.

Let's see if the EU shows some backbone or not.

> penalty for rudeness is gone

I assume Andrew's goal isn't to be a viral influencer but to achieve some type of long term impact or goal. Programmers don't pick languages based on maximal vitriol and if anything do the opposite.

Viral is not an inherently good thing unless you're an influencer. Not all publicity is good publicity.

I never said it's not a horror.

> In some ways that is more depressing than society simply collapsing.

The inability to discuss a horror in realistic terms is how you get a horror. Not exaggerated "society will collapse" but actually tangible realistic and terrible outcomes. Society collapsing is an abstract and nebulous thing. The thing we will get is much worse and unless we look it in the face we will get it.

Gerhard Schröder would like to have a word.