edanm

Your comment makes the timeline seem very different from the way I remember it. Yahoo was dominant much earlier than Google, and was one of a handful of big search engines. Google was a relative newcomer at the time, which had the benefit of being way better at search, which is why it eventually dominated the competition.

The halting problem is NP hard, technically speaking, but it's much harder than that - it's uncomputable. I don't think it's common to refer to it as NP-hard because it's confusing.

(Disclaimer: I'm nowhere near truly knowledgeable about any of this)

Quantum computing was explicitly proposed as a way to prove the truth of many worlds. As far as we can tell, quantum computing appears to work.

I don't think most people believe QC truly proves many-worlds, but I think it is considered some evidence in its favor, and historically it was I think one of the reasons for the development of QC originally.

Very curious what people think about this.

Quoting the US constitution:

"The Congress shall have Power... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

It's about promoting science and art, not "paying authors". Paying authors is of course the mechanism by which art is promoted.

I wonder if that was part of the reason that some programming languages use constructs like "if / fi" "do / od" etc.

(Note: After writing the above, I checked with ChatGPT, it claims that the main motivation was to make it unambiguous which which "opening word" a "closing word" belonged to.)

No, but now I really want to know what the advice is! Can you share it?

> On the other hand, if you already are a good/skilled programmer, AI is not solving anything for you. Its output is flawed and has to be manually fixed and refactored. When you consider the prompting and the waiting and the cajoling and the fixing and the refactoring, it's not really doing things faster than you could.

This seems to not coincide with the reality of some very skilled programmers saying exactly the opposite.

Just to quote the latest one, here's Linus Torvalds, who I think we can agree is a good programmer:

> AI is a tool, just like other tools we use. And it's clearly a useful one.

> It may not have been that "clearly" even just a year ago, but it's no longer in question today.

> There are other questions around AI (like what the economy of it will actually look like in the end), but "is it useful" is no longer one of those questions. Anybody who doubts that clearly hasn't actually used it.

Based on the amount of output, I'm fairly sure simonw has replaced himself with ai years ago :)

I don't get this perspective.

How much of the source code of the compiler you use did you read? How much of the source code of the standard library of your chosen language did you read? What about the dependencies?

How much of the source code of a huge codebase does the average developer read? I don't think any human alive has read the majority of code in huge codebases like Word, Windows, Linux, etc.

For almost every developer, the majority of the code you use every day, whether in software you use or actual code you're shipping, is not code you've ever read. And no one seems to have a problem with it, because we've built lots of processes around this. It's only when the code is written by an AI and not a coworker or random library author that people seem to have a problem.

And I get it! AI wasn't very good at writing code two years ago. Maybe even a year ago. I think it's good now, but maybe you don't - ok, that's fine, maybe it'll only live up to your standards in a year or two or ten. But that doesn't seem to be what people are arguing, it's not "AI isn't good enough", it's "how can we possibly ship code we never read", and my point is that we've all been doing this for our entire careers.

Yes! I immediately thought of this.

And as a bonus reference - this all reminds me a lot of the book "There Is No Antimemetics Division".

Also, Zanagrams is really fun too!

First, this is fantastic! Really fun.

I really like everyone's idea of finding some way of letting the player play all 18 words. Either count up time, and use total time as the score (while allowing pausing). Or else just count the total score at the end, and if someone fails a word it's reduced from the score. So you got 16/18 word or something.

> That's not ever going to be enjoyable. Tolerable, perhaps, given focus on the goal, but few people would be willing to tolerate it.

This is wrong in multiple ways.

For one thing, lots of people enjoy pain and discomfort caused by exercise. Some people even enjoy pain directly! There's ample evidence of this. You're painting with way too broad a brush given that there's enormous variance between people.

Secondly, there's clear evidence that many people do enjoy exercising, because gyms/parks/basketball courts/whateverl are often very busy. Are all these people just waiting for it to end? They're there voluntarily.

Not that I disagree with anything here, but...

I wish it were clearer in these kinds of posts how "I use AI code I don't understand" is so different from "I use libraries written by other people I don't understand", or "I work in a large codebase which was 99% written by other people, and I haven't seen all of it", or even "I use software written by other people I don't understand".

Missing cause it's not true.

> and [Erdős problems are] sufficiently uninteresting that people have not spent that much effort trying to solve them.

Note that this is not really true of this problem in particular.

No, the thing the LLM did is not a proof, it's the opposite. It's proving that the conjecture is false.

Reductio ad absurdum is a technique to prove something.

Yes. One point I don't usually see people address is that using external dependencies has much of the same properties.

Developers often depend on external libraries like things for Image processing, Numpy, etc. Do they have to "own" the code in those external libraries and review them, in the same way people sometimes insist you have to review all AI-generated code? Do developers have to be able to recreate Numpy by themselves, even if their field isn't necessarily numerical optimization etc?

Those seem like very high and unreasonable bars.

Yep, just lost after I think >5 years. But not because of your comment, because of GP comment.

I'm not quite sure I understand the connection.

Interesting story. Dan Wells and Brandon Sanderson will be very happy. :)

That makes this more ok, IMO. I'm otherwise against "AI-edited" being part of the rules — it's very hard to draw the line (does asking an AI for synonyms of a word count?). AI-editing is especially a valuable tool for non-native-English speakers or similar.

Despite commenting on this literally five seconds ago in the sibling comment, I hadn't made the connection that if "vav" is V, then using "vav vav" is like "VV" which is like "W". I wonder if this is a real thing.

In any case, I'm pretty sure it's just a coincidence, I don't think it's a stylistic thing, unless I'm missing something.

It's pronounced the same as in English. Wiz, Waze, Wix. It's written with "double vav" in Hebrew, not just a single vav which would make it read as Viz.

Agree with much of your comment.

Though note that as GP said, on the Wason selection task, people famously do much better when it's framed in a social context. That at least partially undermines your theory that its lack of familiarity with the terminology of formal logic.

I should clarify — I disagree with disallowing any comments that used LLMs in the writing. I think comments should be judged on their quality, not on how they were written.

I might agree (don't know) with the idea of limiting new accounts more heavily.

I wasn't talking about someone learning the language and using this instead of learning it.

There are a lot of people who understand English fairly well, but are not actively learning the language, are not native speakers, and can use LLMs to catch grammar mistakes that they otherwise wouldn't notice. Or catch small nuances in what they are saying, small implications that could otherwise go unnoticed.

In general, I push back on people saying "I can't find a good/legitimate use for this technology, therefore there are no good/legitimate use for it".