waffletower

This sentence, from the article, is one of the most conceptually broken sentences I have ever encountered: "Consciousness has useful computational properties — otherwise evolution would not have come to rely on it." If you grant evolution teleology, a serious chickenegg emerges, and the recursion shatters the "logic". And the other reading... how does a computational property manifest as an abstract goal on to itself without the pre-existence of consciousness? Another chickenegg. I wonder if this article was originally translated from another language or was created with inference. The author conflates design and evolution without providing any projection for their orthogonality. In other words, you need some kind of God to infuse a priori consciousness onto this evolution process. Otherwise consciousness is simply emergent.

I have to see Rolex ads when I go direct to the article and they want me to subscribe to see the entire thing. Good luck, The Atlantic, with your paywall. https://archive.ph/SDzT4

The ubiquity of this rhetoric is not an indication of its correctness. Repetitive tropes like "deskilling", "losing the ability to think" reflect a deep seated distrust of AI alone. No matter how many people parrot these fears the fact remains that you choose your attention. My manager has started coding, heavily, aided by frontier LLMs. He instinctively knows his boundaries and defers much of the more complex work to his engineers. We use the clankers too. Have we been deskilled? Hardly appropriate. Trans-skilled, or learning a new emphasis built upon our long experience? Much closer to the truth.

Actually, command line tools like git and curl could choose to support Certificate Transparency as browsers do, and the need for piecemeal manual updates could be reduced.

I find this man's ostrich response to be quite different from my world view, but agree that it is fascinating to confront. Given that so many of us consume the world via tiny handheld screens and vote the way they do, I think it is definitely worth considering an artificial intelligence hedge. AI Maternalism would be a wildly unpopular counter proposition at the moment, but you have to admit humans aren't succeeding at governance right now either. Some of the parody AI movements are pretty amazing to behold: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DI2fSgssIW2/. I know, I know, but I had points to spare.

Mike Judge has shown that this fear is even closer to home than that.

But can you actually paste into the terminal search popup now? :D Its the dealbreaker that keeps me on iTerm2 on my home machine, and the irritation that has me considering just launching iTerm2 and going back to it on my work machine. I still see the "Update Available: 1.4.0" message but knowing it was fixed would encourage me to close all my sessions and update.

Aaron Swartz should not have been prosecuted. Full stop. His case should not (and I am fairly certain will not) be seen as legal precedent for employees at Anthropic. Each time I have read the headline for this story today on HN I clicked below the up arrow wishing that there was a way to downvote stories. Intellectual property bullies are not only aggressively boring, their clamor adds nothing constructive to society: it is purely parasitic and uninteresting discourse.

I have a long email ready to send to ACTBLUE right after the midterms. It threatens informing the FTC, which might do something since they are Republican controlled atm, which I would simply have done automatically if I weren't sympathetic. It asks, again, to be removed from all of their affiliates. I imagine I won't be successful. Totally agree that it shouldn't be up to me to somehow succeed at whack-a-mole and finally send STOP to every last spam I receive. I use 'END', 'STOP', and 'Delete and mark as spam'. I do all three. STOP and END do work, but I am being asked to fund every single campaign regardless of U.S. region.

Actually, it is clear that the proliferation of AI has deranged many communities. I tend to have more issue with obsessive and disagreeable negative content about AI than the actual AI content.

That might very well be one of their post-IPO strategies.

That is a projected, community-localized, requirement that ignores historic evolution of the practice. It is very interesting that machines can now be more flexible and understanding about nomenclature subtleties like this than some human engineers. Since we are adding layer after layer of pedantry -- rather than 'requirement' -- 'ethic' or 'practice' would be a more effective, practical and inclusive word choice here. The subtext of this thread, that Clojure somehow isn't a "functional enough" language to be labelled a "functional" language is narrow community prejudice.

Interesting that the commenters here latched on to the Anthropic curated visage of benevolent humanity vs. the dominant view of "conformity trumps truth" from the majority of models. Perhaps I saw what I wanted to: the many subtle variations of our irrational conformity was glaring and deeply resonated with my life experience.

What characterizes a "functional language" often skirts history. Clojure defaults to immutable data structures and is more functional than its Lisp ancestry, although Lisp does enjoy "functional" status in all but the most religious programming circles.

He shouldn't be downvoted, but I haven't seen broken parens in a while.

I think these developments should be done with care and cognizance of the user. I worry that formalism may have trouble scaling and interacting with user intent. LLMs will (and already do in my experience) construct a formalism for your application that may be provable to some archetype -- but separate from reality and separate from your conception. The Claude user experience of rulings is already at a cultural limit among users -- the excitement over the linguistic 'improvements' of the Opus 5.5 release are a case in point. Formalism is only one axis here and usability is another. This could be a problematic development if done lopsidedly.

I don't see scientists reacting to this with the same affront as Terrance Tao does for frontier LLM mathematical proof dumping. Just imagine the Salk Institute declaring "we are on a war footing" after learning of such LLM aided discoveries.

Yes, choose both or choose one of them and, for god's sake, STFU and make something!

> Everyone in SWE (who got into it for the love of writing code) is experiencing this.

Speak for yourself.

Ruby is definitely not bringing me joy since I have to see needlessly depressing articles like this. Rails did not bring me joy 12 years ago when I needed to update dependencies for a legacy cloud service we relied on. Ruby's middling syntax didn't bring me joy either, despite the hype of the time. My child named our cat Ruby, and I had to explain to fellow nerds that it wasn't inspired by the language.

I am not surprised that this cage rattling of the academy landed on the front page of the NYT during this period of economic and political tumult. Mathematics can, and it should be an open question if it should, exist independently of provenance. I don't see mathematicians speaking with altitude about the economy of provenance; where AI may be dis-incentivizing mathematicians by eroding discovery claims; I see only entitled affront. But perhaps, if they are being honest, the glory of discovery is viewed as a critical motivator. If so, mathematics is thus imperiled by human vanity, not AI. The same logic applies to thinking and grappling with proofs -- it is a human choice to turn off your thinking. AI is attributed with false agency here.

I think someone missed the memo with naming -- SI is SIGMA INTELLIGENCE (https://ibb.co/67xf8xtp)

The number 77.3 million has me willing to gamble on the new species we are vying to create instead.

I might have disagreed at one point. But then people on the left started spitting on my electric car. "Let's fight climate change by intimidating people who drive emission-free cars!" Progressives who use the word 'libtard' were suddenly born. Circular firing squads are not a sign of intelligence.

I definitely lost my "smart" status after contemplating the number 77.3 million.

What is going to "suck" is when Anthropic blocks its models from honoring decompilation requests. You'll have to switch to OpenAI models :) And after that, another boost for Chinese open weights.

I think this is happening to promote Musk's biographical documentary which opens in U.S. theaters October 16th. :D

I think your metaphor is certainly possible. I feel it is much more like a "dragster for the mind" in my personal experience. In both cases you remain seated and your legs don't do much. But perhaps a wheelchair can get you more places...

I think that people who believe that AI will diminish human thinking might be more likely to have their thinking diminished. I don't discount that the effect discussed is possible, and probably likely for many; however, I strongly believe it is ultimately a choice. For me AI shifts what I give attention to, and increasingly I am thinking at higher levels of abstraction.

Or the booster, like me I guess, thought it might be a good idea after reading the suggestion, but was too lazy to follow through with the multitudes. Suffice to say, from my vantage, I see great benefits and enumeration is problematic as there are so many. There are certainly detriments and I think the skepticism is incredibly important, but I think there is a point where the critique can be self-fulfilling and suffocate AI from being as effective as it could be.