kian

So this makes sense for a standard SaaS app - but given that models in general perform much better with low context window usage, it probably also means that Fable is still significantly better at 'frontier-level tasks' -- hard research problems, complex geometric rendering algorithm optimization, etc., no?

It doesn't seem like there's been a precipitous drop in resources compared to the decades of requests and warnings that have led up to this point. So what's different now, if not resourcing?

"In my experience, AI still drifts from what I meant it to do on anything bigger than building a widget."

I've had code bases with tens of thousands of lines of code built from scratch that I hand-reviewed every line of and worked with the AI to improve, and haven't had this issue. I feel like a significant part of this is due to an involved /plan stage -- going back and forth on building out a plan for what you want the AI to do involves surfacing the assumptions that you would have called drift if you asked them to implement it directly from your prompt.

Once the plan has been refined and is what I want it to be, getting it to implement everything in TDD style has for the most part given me 100% working code, as I wanted it to be, without issues. It definitely helps that I'm a principal-level engineer with extensive architectural experience -- but if you're able to tell the AI in detail what you want, have it ask questions for clarifications, and read through a plan before getting it implemented, and have a solid testing plus manual qa process (automated by chrome devtools mcp) in place, I've find that you can one-shot complex features, rewrites, and even not-insignificant applications that would have taken days to write by hand in a few hours.

But what was the overlap?

If you take the chromatic scale and then swap every other pair of notes on opposite sides of the circle, it yields the circle of fifths. You'll notice that on the circle of fifths notes that skip a step are a whole tone apart in the chromatic scale.

Although there have been some claims in these comments to the contrary, harmony is particularly mathematical. Symmetry and the breaking of within the integers mod 12 form the foundational principles of harmony.

Abstract Algebra, Combinatorics, and Discrete Mathematics are all definitely worth the squeeze; and incidentally something that could easily be taught to middle- and high-schoolers with the right examples.

and now we program the fabric of society ;)

This is why I exclusively use the API to 'chat' with GPT -- complete control over the context presented.

Many artists in fact do exactly this -- they do not make the art themselves, but instead imagine and manage the 'art project' and delegate tasks to other artists that work for them. Leonardo (Da Vinci) in fact himself did this with much of the work required for his paintings, although the most crucial parts he left for himself.

They are slant rhymes of one another. B and M are phonetically nearby, as are ia and ih and ao and ou. In no way like hacker news and cake her knees -- but more like hacker news and hagger moos ;)

I have also found that programming is the gateway drug to Math B. Thanks to Functional Programming and Type Theory I eventually found may way into Abstract Algebra, Topology, and Category Theory... Wish I had time to go back and study these with a mentor, though!

>> The Pythagorean theorem becomes intuitively true not when you have some deep insight about Euclidean space, but when, on seeing a right triangle, three proofs of it spring instantly to mind.

To be honest, this sounds like orienting one's self in the 'space of mathematics'. Is it not possible that, just like one can navigate by landmarks (proofs) or by the space itself (deep understanding), that there are in fact two roads to intuition in mathematics, of which ones is practice and fluency, and the other is deep insight and understanding?

perhaps he's suggesting that they seize the software, weights, and training data from every company who's engaged in this? Or maybe he's just trying to protect profits and doesn't mean a word of it...

Thanks for the pointer!

Democracy: Rule of the Mob. Pretty sure the above sentiment is why the US is a republic...

I'm stealing that parenthetical...

that's a good question, but the electron transport chain and photosynthesis are both postulated/(known?) to exploit quantum effects at room temperature.

Were temples not themselves often used to encode [spatio-]temporal information (about the time of the year, our location within the solar system and cosmos, etc) within their construction, now that you mention it?

I love this response. On a slightly smaller scale, there are also ideas of protein interaction-network computational 'circuitry' -- I think that showing that folding can also compute is a nice addendum to this.

So, then, protein folding is likely also possible to make Turing complete, no?

I'd also call out Eternal September in 1993, when AOL made it easy for anyone with a computer to connect online. This permanently changed the composition of the internet, and paved the way for the social networks that would later come to dominance after the iPhone was released.

This sounds like the end-state is an increase in the relative value of extremely well-written films, as special effects and eye candy lose their luster as they become extremely common-place (see the Marvel universe of films, for an example of this happening already).

I think in this case that problem even exists in their own code that they don't fully understand.

> you don't know what is my way of life, so can't note anything about this.

"I'll also note that you don't seem to be very forthcoming"

Literally the only thing I noted was that you didn't seem to be very forthcoming about what that way of life was -- something you appear to have confirmed in the comment above.

Since you do not seem to be concerned with addressing any of the substantive points in our conversation, and seem more concerned about telling others how they should do hard work rather than sharing the fruits of your labor (if indeed you have done it at all, and aren't just grandstanding for internet points) -- let's leave this discussion at I won't be statistically murdering any innocents to get at answers that you don't think are important enough to share, and that I hope that in your personal life you still choose kindness over 'right-think' that is statistically unlikely to make a difference at the state or national level -- or, heck, choose both.

Either way, thanks for helping clarify your position -- even if it isn't exactly the one you thought you were elucidating ;)

Happy holidays, I hope your personal exchange rate allows for you delivering presents and possibly visiting far away family!

So, again, you've done this research, right? Why don't you give me some numbers? Your lack of concern for the people I'll have to statistically kill to answer these questions you've posed is a bit concerning.

Although, with your belief in infinite demand elasticity for gasoline, I'm starting to lose a little faith in the correctness of your calculations, I'd still love to hear them. I won't even ask for the calculation itself -- just give me the exchange rate you've already calculated of gallons of gas per statistical life, please.

I'll also note that you don't seem to be very forthcoming about how many statistical murders you commit to maintain your way of life while you pontificate about the immorality of others' choices in this regard.

Now that you've given me a bunch of homework (rather than an exchange rate derived from that research), I can spend a bunch of my time to measure the human misery inflicted by driving at all (and how much extra is inflicted using a gas-inefficient vehicle). Of course, presumably several people will have died as a result of the electricity and gas used to manufacture and move the food that I will have required to spend the time used for that research [that you have presumably already done? For the moment, I'll trust your numbers and your intent, if you're willing to share them to save a few lives].

I do have the following estimate range for the value of a statistical life in typical Western democracies -- "In Western countries and other liberal democracies, estimates for the value of a statistical life typically range from US$1 million—US$10 million; for example, the United States FEMA estimated the value of a statistical life at US$7.5 million in 2020".

Should we be applying this value for lives in autocratic gas dictatorships, or should we be using a smaller number? Again, since you've clearly spent the time on this already, I'll defer to your calculations if you're willing to share them.

Now all we need is a measure of the value of human kindness and what the appropriate discount rate is for local kindness vs exported kindness and present lives vs future lives, along with a measure of the inelasticity of demand for gasoline, to take into account the actual impact of us not making a purchase [since a gallon unconsumed by someone here does not equate to a gallon left in the ground or unconsumed].

Additionally, do these autocratic regimes kill fewer or more people when they are earning less and thus have a more tenuous hold on power? Presumably if we all reduced our gas consumption entirely, we might even be able to induce a violent revolution to overthrow them. Those are usually pretty bloodless, and I haven't ever heard of revolutionaries becoming the new autocratic regime before. You wouldn't happen to have any pointers on how to calculate any of the above, or even better, calculations you've already done yourself, would you?

Finally, for bonus points, would you care to share the number of statistical lives that you ruin per year to support you and your family's own personal transportation and living habits so that I can have an idea of your revealed preference for following through on your expressed beliefs and your own actual personal exchange rate on the value of your life and happiness vs strangers across the globe?

[ I should probably add, at this point, that I don't drive anywhere at all, and I take mass transportation when I do travel, which is very infrequently ]

Please, help me with this calculation, since I clearly lack the proper exchange rate -- how many gallons of excess gasoline or votes for the wrong 'local' (rather than national or state) politician equals being nice to people for a lifetime or helping those less fortunate?

I get that you're trying to say that voting for the wrong local politician might lead to more 'less fortunates' -- principled individuals could argue this one either way, for either side of the political divide, about who the 'wrong' politicians are -- but how exactly does burning excess gasoline, and at what exchange rate? Perhaps we are talking about the impact on future generations? Is there a discount rate on future lives over present? Have you perhaps gotten rid of your car long ago and just walk everywhere selflessly slashing tires while trying your best to barely convert oxygen to carbon dioxide?

At least I suppose the idea that being nice to the people around you is less important than voting for the right colors or driving the right cars or holding the right ideological opinions certainly does explain a whole lot about the current social climate. It is a shame people seem to have such a hard time with the idea of doing all of the above, and just seem to pick one or the other.

So voting for the 'correct' local politician and driving an eco-friendly car are more important than being nice and helping others less fortunate? How very blue.

Where on earth would that have been?

Because the entire economic system is too complex for humans to micro-manage without negative downstream effects? I recommend some Hayek if you find this idea implausible.