avindroth

Could you share the code for some of the custom threading macros you created? Looks very useful.

Tacit programming + llm control library (like LangChain) has a lot of untapped potential. Tacit programming shines when the control structures are simple (and functions/variables can be anonymized), and these patterns occur frequently in programming on top of llms.

For those who have the book, what is contained in the "discussion of the interactive Lisp programming process" as mentioned by Paolo?

Forth really changed the way I think. I now take notes in a Forth-like way. Very underexplored.

In my experience, perfectionism is crafted post-procrastination. It probably makes no sense, but the mind often does this convoluted thing in order to protect procrastination.

Agreed. Our computers are so powerful, do we really need this additional complexity?

And of course, if performance becomes an issue, we can make minor improvements then.

Literally everything was happening on Twitter.

From spaces to “OpenAI is nothing without its people” to heart emojis.

Sam and Greg posted their statement there.

This is a huge win for Twitter.

Satya wins by letting Ilya win. Wow.

Why do you think people undervalue it? Very curious.

Yeah. pg/chesky/masayoshi must be really dumb or sth.

Are you participating in AoC maybe? I might write some stuff.

I emailed at team@reframe.is (as shown in the website), but the email account doesn’t exist.

pls include the url to ur site!

Sent an email. You guys should make it obvious it’s reframe.is, not reframe-ai.com which is first on search

Carson Gross

https://www.backendbanter.fm/episodes/024-behind-htmx-carson...

Tiered rollout, not getting April 2023 on both of my accounts. Also saw September 2023 on Twitter.

1. I don’t think it’s too hard to understand BYOK or n number of tokens. I’ll have to talk to the market at large but personally, pretty clear.

2. Maybe you can suggest an alternative?

Well, this is just clickbait. Choose boring technology means sth pretty concrete for someone without context. It’s not that you can’t reasonably title it. It’s that you can’t reasonably title it to generate views.

I understand the sentiment, but then one should expect criticism of the schism between title and content.

We need a new language/DSL. Python is a lost cause for strings as first-class.

It’d be cool if it acted against Github repos, then you can save the embeddings and have a unified interface for querying repos.

I had this problem trying to learn a library and figuring out what all the functionalities are. I ended up making a non-ai solution (an emacs pkg), but this seems just a step or two away from your current project imho.

This space is surprisingly under-explored. Any idea in this space is basically new.

I think I used the wrong word here. But they fall under a different legal category iirc.

Forgive me if I am wrong, but isn’t this exactly what trial by TV is? Trial by its nature presents evidence (strong or not), but the point of trial by TV is that the public, not the court, decides the legality of actions, where legality is interpreted broadly.

Note that social media can also act as public forums, which aren’t protected in the way entirely private institutions are. For instance, newspaper organizations are in a similar territory.

Reflexion can serve as good reference here:

https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.11366

Essentially, AI’s output is fed into a checker, whose output is fed back into the AI for “reflexion”. Then the AI often corrects (leading to noticeable improvement in GPT-4 perf).

Do you honestly believe I should instead just take your word for it and ignore both personal evidence and studies? That would make no sense.

No. Also, maybe this is unclear, but I am questioning your decision when you posted your original comment (when my anecdote was unavailable).

If I were you, I would hesitate from making broad generalizations like “[hateful content] is typical content on Twitter”. A very strong statement, but sensible given your unusual access patterns. I would not make the general claim about Twitter that way (other than what studies mention), but seems like you are generalizing your cherry-picked experience.

I actually concede the points about the objective increase in hateful tweets on the site. It would be odd for them to not increase, given that all the banned accounts were reinstated; this is obvious. Similarly, we would reasonably expect less hate speech in countries that penalize them. Free speech was espoused in spite of these increases (for deeper, second/third-order consequence reasons).

To make it clear: I never said Twitter adopting free speech would lead to less hate speech on the platform. I am merely responding to your incendiary generalizations of the platform without having seriously used it.

There’s a sense in which we vary in our sensitivity towards strong moderation and limiting freedom of speech. I think freedom of speech is a hard-won right of history, something preserved for us by our ancestors so that we may enjoy it. It is also fragile, and the default human state is to diminish freedom of speech for exploitation. To me, it’s precious and serves as a backbone of a truly democratic society, but perhaps you may differ.

This leads to an interesting difference between HN and Twitter; I enjoy HN and its strongly moderated nature (there are several other strongly moderated platforms I enjoy).

But Twitter seems different. It acts as both a personal and commercial outlet for news. Personal identities are far stronger; silencing an account is silencing an identity. The consequences of limiting free speech differ.

EDIT: I also took a more careful look at your original comment with the Twitter accounts. I honestly cannot find any problematic accounts after having looked through maybe 30 posts on Top. Did you take most of them from Latest? That would make sense, but you are basically giving Twitter a very short window to respond to things. Besides, it’s not the *existence* that matters, it’s whether they are promoted or not. Because for the average user, they will see tweets with much engagement. I would be happy to see any studies on the average Twitter user’s feed, and see the amount of hateful content. If you can demonstrate that (by some sensible definitions) the average Twitter user sees a lot of hateful content, I would gladly change my mind.

Right. Don’t you think it’s a bit of a stretch to make strong evaluations of a platform if you use it very rarely, in a non-usual manner? Do you care to qualify your statements like:

…Twitter is such a horrible place

Or

[hateful content] is the *typical* content you get on Twitter

I agree there’s abominable things on Twitter - that’s what you get with a platform (now) focused on free speech. But you have to sort of go out looking for it. I think Twitter has done a good job championing freedom of speech while making it not so “hateful” for the average user.

I think it's crazy, given how Russia is at least an indirect adversary to the US and EU in this war.

Why is this crazy? In general, would you like Twitter to ban sources that advocate for US adversaries in war?

This doesn't work for people who aren't interested in information bubbles, yet nevertheless think free speech should reasonably restricted by law and by moderation.

I think you are conflating your unusual access pattern with the experience of people who don’t follow anyone (which is also rare). In addition, characterizing the act of following people as engaging in information bubble is very, very reductionist. Any decent intellectual would know to filter their sources and create a good information “bubble”; I want to hear from X because they are trustworthy, I want to read from Y because they are smart, etc. Without that information “bubble” every piece of information is of equal priority (and thus much waste in time).

Just because people throw the word around doesn’t mean it’s a bad thing.

That withstanding, one can truly fall into a lull where you don’t get any opinions of the opposing side. But the solution is not to reject information filters altogether - that’s just random chance, intellectual laziness.

But above all, what I have issue with mostly is one’s (strong) evaluation of something without a serious attempt to understand it. Perhaps a bit intellectually dishonest, no?

Do you use other social media platforms? Do you see value in social media at all?

Thank you for the detailed response.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I have a suspicion you don’t use Twitter, you study it. Thus you are viewing the fringes, but perhaps not aware of the average user’s experience.

AFAIK Twitter uses a demoting algorithm in order to demote offensive content. A different form of moderation that doesn’t silence. I don’t think the previous iteration of Twitter with strong moderation made it a better social media site (nor a forum for free speech).

I can only speak to my own experience using Twitter near daily, but I have almost never come across hateful content (in whichever political bend it may take). I actually found it a great resource for my interests like AI, psychology, etc.

Thus statements like:

The lack of moderation is one of the reason why Twitter is such a horrible place - but there are other causes, it basically encourages toxic behavior and passive aggression due to its rules and their inconsequent and inconsistent enforcement.

Or

It's just the typical content you get on Twitter.

run very counter to my own experience on the platform.

Do you actually use Twitter? What kind of people do you follow? How does it differ from your own experience with other social media sites?

Alright, if you will, help me understand your position. Maybe it’s good to agree on some baselines.

1) Do you think freedom of speech is important?

2) How do you draw the line between free speech and hate speech?

3) Who should draw the line?

For instance, you mention conspiracy theories; do you think we should ban users who tweet about conspiracy theories?

Second and third questions optional if you don’t think freedom of speech is important.

This is (sadly) an engineer’s perspective.

Things don’t have to be “proven to always work” to be useful. If paradigms engender thoughts, they can be useful in context.

By your logic, since most heuristics don’t always work, we should throw them out. Don’t throw the baby out, too.

Unproven things can be useful.