beepbooptheory

This is nice but not even a mention of the rather robust existing solution here with Magit Forge?

https://github.com/magit/forge

I mean yeah.. An argument is typically something pretty different from a "point"... Idk why that seems so crazy? If I do an experiment, I would never say I am arguing something. I wouldn't even say I was making the point. I was, despite its seeming futility now, trying to make a point about the article to you. It seems willfully misread to take my last post in any other way.

As for the experiment itself, this takes like two minutes to look up:

https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/5y6m4_v1

There is literally no delegation in the way (I think) you are meaning, there is the contrived presentation of different tools for different control groups.

Also, like I don't know why you are talking like I did this experiment? I just read it, I am not over here trying to argue for anything other than common sense and the ability to understand what the researchers were doing using even a oz of intellectual charity. Is that, too, impossible now? Where is the freaking fire?

The article, and the paper it references, is not an argument or "proof" of anything. This is not a theorem. The point is, given access to the same relative information as anything, there is (supposedly) a greater trust, there is less I-dont-knows with something in the form of a chatbot vs something else.

Whatever you're bias is or not here, the point you are missing is this is not about any given AI, or even about any given AIs "reliability" or not. It's not even, really, about "delegation" itself. It's just studying the supposed correlation here between uncertainty and one certain form of a tool.

There is no damning, sweeping thing to argue for here, this is not an editorial or an opinion, and does not purport to even be some big finding I would say. It's a pop sci article about a study done by (I presume) sociologists.

So yes, I would either way say you missed the point here.

Kind of a meta point but for those who don't know, its fun to track this comment and its responses through time. I want to nominate it for the hall of fame in classic HN post genre. It will be two decades soon!

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=21&prefix=false&q...

One interesting thing would be to see how the numbers change over the years alongside the otherwise identical debates.

Just really really missing the point here in a kind of revealing way.. You probably have access to some really reliable models if I had to guess!

Eventually AI guys are gonna absorb everything, even the old tradition of angry software teardowns...

Shouldn't having all powerful chat bot give you thicker skin, not thinner?

Is that right though? I feel like "tortured" is usually used more when one term is overly specific/over-fitted to the other. I've never heard it used like this, where it's about its provenance?

Not that anyone really cares here, but the gp quote isn't even really fundamentally a metaphor either way, its an exhortation to "imagine". The Orwell isn't even a metaphor!

Because this is exactly what they controlled for. FTA:

The researchers used Step 3.5 Flash, a model that was usually wrong on these questions, precisely so any reduction in judgment could not be explained as sensible delegation to a reliable tool.

(emphasis mine)

If you really really like the $100 AI video, no one can take that away from you, but its just weird to be so principled about this in the negative: like no one actually wants to say they're good, its just some people don't want to admit they're worse than anything else.

Acting like some Roman legionary, saying "This slop is good enough for the piggies. not that I, classically trained, could discriminate between the slops either way" is certainly not contradictory, but if it needs to be the kind of discourse defended on here, then please, go right ahead!

Its like misunderstanding the concept of "music video" as one form music can take, presumably alongside "music audio," and the being "classically trained" is meant to speak to a strength in "music" in general.

As opposed to the non-analog kind??

Classically trained in music videos??

Huh, got it. That's pretty cool!

I'm not doing fancy AI stuff but I have worked a lot with my own bespoke supercollider system where I record whole fretboards of guitars and then play alternative notes based off of certain rules. For whatever dumb reason though, the most natural sounding thing is really just playing, e.g., any random D4 from its possibilities at any given moment.

Timbral differences also exist depending on force, the manner plucked, the already ringing overtones... It's hard to know what you want, but the most natural thing is always going to be some organic variation in the notes in general.

If you have a good ear, you aren't, I don't think, hearing so much the timbral diff in the individual open or fretted notes as much as the fact that a barre chord and an open chord is a different voicing of the same harmony.

This doesn't make sense with the story. If it's good advice according to you, why do you need it at all? Doesn't it provide you something that you otherwise don't have?

Maybe I am just not smart enough for this.. What is the parable supposed to be about? What are we supposed to learn from it?

But like, just hypothetically here, what if they don't? Isn't that the framing here?

Like, don't get me wrong, if we want to start talking about more centralized organization of the economy that operates on the calculated total benefit it provides to people in general, I am personally all for that. But something tells me that is not quite the argument you are wanting to make here, right?

It always tells you what will make you happiest. If it would make you happiest to succeed at your work, it will tell you how best to complete it. If it would make you happiest to do a half-assed job at your work and then go home and spend the rest of the day in bed having vague sexual fantasies, the earring will tell you to do that. The earring is never wrong.

It just has to be this in the story because it doesn't want to engage with why what the earring indicates is so good except that it provides unfailable "happiness". It implies a static world where "the right decision" always exists, but doesn't want to engage with the details. It also implies a kind of akrasia[1] that I don't think resonates with lived experience: "happiness" is a state we pass in and out of, not the accumulation of correct decisions. We undergo unhappiness for the sake of future happiness. "Happiness" is a questionable end-all goal first of all, but either way not even the kind of thing ontologically compatible with the author's framing.

It just feels half-baked, it doesn't actually say anything even when it has all the pretenses of that. Maybe that's too harsh though.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akrasia

This has a nice, Borgesian, charm to it but I feel like it's premise is confused. If it's just about the here near-empty signifier of "happiness," what does the magic tech of the earring actually contribute to the parable that some hypothetically perfect narcotic wouldn't?

What do you find hard about it? Is it a conceptual thing or the tools themselves? I'm very far from a sysadmin, but it's just such a ground level using-linux type thing in my brain, I don't think I ever thought I had a choice about learning it!

Can you link to any examples of a good editorial by this measure?

It's extra weird because the Carmack quote immediately following seems to invalidate this very point!

Or at the very least: "It was never about the actual coding" and "coding more separates you from those who will fall behind" is classic kettel logic.

The actual paper is linked there if you are curious.

But also just thinking about your point for one second: in your mind, how else would they argue for the conclusion if not by checking the trend over time? Like what is the precise implication here?

Gotta say, if I ever was, I am really not envying the AI guys these days! Sounds terrible!

But in this particular case isn't the problem that it's sending everything in the sandbox? Rather than what it might do in an otherwise un-sandboxed system?

OK but then this just feels like an ultimately empty, universally acceptable thing to argue for. No one wants overreach. Its like: "we should prevent regulations that actively harm people." I agree with that! This is precisely what I mean about it just all feeling like a mostly empty dismissal, not something people can use.

But like.. How can this remain a satisfying or even helpful position for you? It kinda feels The State is but one of a set of concerns I could have in this world. And the lack of one, in some contexts, is also a concern. Like, I wanna know if there is going to be mudslide, or that air traffic controllers are not overworked, that the car that I buy is not going to blow up, if I will be able to buy food tomorrow.

It just seems a bigger cognitive dissonance to pick out one arbitrary force here among many and say its the only thing really that's the problem. The world is simply more complicated than that!

If it was the best hypothetical form of techno anarcho-capitalism tomorrow (or insert your libertarian flavor here), would I even sleep better? Probably not, but even if I did marginally, the weight of everything else kinda would win out anyway here.

Like what does this mean to you, what follows? Can this outlook address the myriad of cultural/environmental problems in the world? It seems like it structurally can't, it's just, like, a broad dismissal in the form of a worldview.

OK.. when you discuss these things with your Fable, what topics come up? Can you articulate one of the questions? I am probably just another dumb human FYI, but just try it out and we will see if I can follow along.

Unpack this a little bit. Why is it strange or interesting to you? What specific priors need to be updated for us here? What is the philosophical questions at play for you?

As AI outsider, can you speak to how you draw the line here? Like doesn't the agential blahblah make upgrades/maintenance trivial?

When do you get it to make you the thing versus choosing to vendor something out like back in the day?

I think at the very least, once the dust settles, a lot of these datacenters could become really really cool haunted houses, giant escape rooms, etc.

The real "AI" success story will be the person that makes an IRL backrooms theme park in the husk of a datacenter.

Or: laser tag park, the vests you wear are in part old tpu/gpu components.