voidhorse

Yes because the keystrokes aren't free and the world is finite. We need to pay these monkeys in bananas.

Probably because claude suggested some kind of wack react based setup early on (because react dominates the training data) and it's be blasphemy worthy of termination for the Anthropic employees to question the sacred pronouncements of the llm.

to be more specific, i'd argue LLMs “understand” awfully similarly to a brilliant (polymath) with early dementia or Alzheimer'

At which point i'd argue that you're kind of refuting your own claim as most humans are not brilliant polymaths with early onset alzheimer's.

Even admitting these kinds of comparisons to edge case human mental experience, there are more differences than similarities, and the similarities are misleading and superficial. There are still a lot of differences, even when it comes to the physical structure of the brains neurons as compared to digital neural nets, and i think it's far more beneficial to try to understand these machine in their uniqueness and for what they are than to draw hasty and shallow comparisons. You could be forgiven for that, though, because computing is rife with people who love to draw hasty unjustified analogies for some reason (example: people were already likening the brain to a computer when we didn't even have working implementations of neural nets yet and a computer was literally just a small number of logic gates lol)

I'm really starting to tire of people making broad, general claims about how LLMs work or how to use them with N = 1 or 2.

An LLM is a statistics machine for goodness sake. Basically any general claim about them needs to exploit the law of large numbers to be even remotely sensible. You cannot extrapolate from one-off behavioral successes. LLMs are not understanding anything in the way humans do. If they did, yeah, maybe you could extrapolate hard from small samples, but they don't work or understand things like we do. You need to show that the behavior you are documenting is an average behavior the LLM converges toward in the long run.

I don't know enough about the quantum level to really understand whether or not that would change my view of things.

From Shannon's theory, it's abundantly clear that "information" is just a mathematical description of difference and expectation. I can frame anything as information. If I know who my parents are, a statement about who they are is not informative to me because it constitutes no difference. The entropy and expectation/surprise is low. If someone approaches me with a compelling argument that no, actually, my parents are not my parents I was adopted and my real parents are so and so, this is informative. The entropy is high.

Crucially, this all depends on me my personal history, and my status as an observer. It is in this sense that I find information to be a communications concept (which is how it started!) or semiotic concept more than a useful abstraction for organizing our knowledge about other parts of reality. Yes, the abstraction might still be useful if e.g. quanta end up behaving in some way according to shannon's laws, that is interesting, but to me uh at is not an argument that turns information into some kind of "universal substrate" of the real—it is just a surprising applicability of laws in one domain to another. Is it surprising that empirical data fit the model? Maybe. Idk, lots of empirical data can be made to fit all kinds of models (there are ways in which hI can reasonably take a Newtonian view of various aspects of my life and the data generally won't contravene the laws).

What a stupid list. Heavily biased. I'd just like to point out that a large bulk of these papers depend on the existence of the computer and yet Alan Turing is not even on the list.

You are missing the point. Let me use "fabulashinaism" which is a theory I just made up that posits that the universe is made up of little gnomes called atoms.

There is a sense in which all of my observations hence will be "theory laden". When I seek "proof" i'm likely to do so within the constraints of fabulashinaism.

Science proceeds in the same way. Only crises, which are unpredictable and may have much more than simple "new data collected" behind them actually drive theory change. Beyond the theoretical assumptions, many of which are not proven but are constraining hypotheses, there are the social value assumptions I mentioned as well. As someone else said in the thread, science cannot prove science. You can be of the opinion that it's been more effective than alternatives, and I would agree, but there is no way to prove this because it is ultimately a question of theoretical assumptions and of values.

Let me try again. We use miles to measure distance. Hopefully you agree with me that, miles, being a system of measurement to express relationships of distance, have no ontological existence themselves. I would find it completely bizarre, for example, for someone to argue passionately that, "no miles are the real deal and something that exists in the universe and meters are a fabrication". Distance surely is a real phenomenon, but "miles" are a system of expression.

Bits and information are the same thing. They are a system of measurement to express relationships of difference. Difference and change as physical phenomena exist, but bits do not.

So, yes, pointing out that the limits of computation give us some useful facts about the way things change in reality is a useful perspective. Going further and saying something like "computation is the basis of reality" or similar extremes is too reductive and too abstract to really be a useful piece of knowledge in my view. Finally, to claim that information is somehow the important fundament of existence is patently absurd to me, since it would've similar to arguing that miles have some very special epistemic and ontological status.

At a glance, this seems heavily recency-biased and not adjusted for inflation. I would expect a lot of other names that predate the 21st century to be on the list. The methodology page doesn't even contain the word 'inflation'.

Yeah, but my point is that "information" is not really a substantive concept. It is an abstraction. It is a useful technical tool. For the record, I am a nominalist when it comes to mathematics. Thinking that information is some "real thing" with meaning independent of theoretical context and interpreters is a definitely Platonisist perspective (the idea that our mathematical representations are not merely useful technical models but that they correspond to some real substantive elements of the real).

Claiming that "information" is the underlying basis of the real is the same as effectively saying that "stuff" is the underlying basis of existence. It's essentially Platonism. It is not informative. What is informative is the operational use of the mathematical concept of information as defined by Shannon to understand real things or to structure theories. But this is a very different thing than identifying a substance that exists, independently of us in the universe. This "making real" of what is ultimately a mathematical abstraction is precisely reification.

Sure, others would also claim the "financial view" of the universe has also provided insight. That doesn't mean I go around claiming the money is some fundamental universal substance of the real.

Computation as realized by computers is a formalism invented by Turing, Church, Kleene and others to make precise the intuitive notion of "algorithm".

An algorithm, at its root, is a procedure rooted in human understanding that human beings can follow.

When Turing and others first introduced this formal notion, not all mathematicians were even fully convinced it was an adequate representation of the informal intuitive notion. For example, some argued it was too broad because traditionally knowing that an algorithm eventually terminates was one of the requirements (to some) for something to be a legitimate algorithm. Why? Because the idea is rooted in human practical concerns and human understanding. Depending on what one cares about, one could actually reject the Turing formalization of algorithm on grounds of the class containing non-convergent (partial) functions.

All this is to say that "computation" is very much a human invention and little more than a formal model of human behaviors (we want to manipulate things algebraically). Elevating it to some objective substance of the universe is just doing 17th/18th century philosophical Idealism wrapped in new clothes.

There is no single "scientific method" to speak of. Your epistemic position is ultimately just as faith based as you claim faith in God etc. is, the sciences (plural) just have a set of operations which, as you point out, seem to have practical utility and seem to be better than certain alternatives for building up shared epistemic structure.

The attitude of "we can't do better" is precisely the kind of attitude that would have hampered the creation of various sciences and their methods in the first place, and the production of scientific thought is often not as pure or logically consistent as all the methodological purists or Popperians seem to believe it is. Feyerabend, Quine, Von Foerster, Dataon and Gallison and several others have made this pretty clear and make the argument pretty forcefully in my opinion.

All sciences carry an ontology and value system along with them. Religion is also a rich and highly effective epistemic structure when your underlying ontological assumptions, values, and goals differ from those established and implicit in the scientific (predominantly utilitarian) Western enlightenment value system. Science is not able to found itself on some irrefutable bedrock "truth" correspondence any more than religion is. There is no basis by which we can actually solidify empiricism as somehow more privileged and more capital T true if we admit the possibility of human error.

This. I'll never understand people who reify "information" as though it is some object with independent existence from man.

No information without an interpretation. The "amount" of information is completely dependent on the observer.

You'd think people who work constantly with abstraction wouldn't fall prey to reifying abstractions but they actually seem more susceptible to it than anyone else.

Mamdani has been doing great in NYC so far. The hope is that he will inspire similar behavior in others. And drive similar approaches to politics in other constituencies.

"Hammers are now a very popular tool, and one can move quickly building exclusively with hammers, so we have decided to construct buildings strictly using nails, no more screws, bolts, or any other kind of fastener shall be used going forward."

People seem to have adopted very liberal definitions of "personal attack".

When someone criticizes you for things you could improve on that are within your control, it may be difficult to hear, but it is not a personal attack. Someone calling you a stink manager, and listing factors as to why (unreasonable expectations etc.) is not a personal attack.

Someone talking about the inexperience you used to have (being a beginner developer) is not a personal attack.

Someone listing your business decisions (taking VC money, etc) is not a personal attack.

Maybe the only comment in this entire piece that is remotely close to an "attack" is the bit about slop code, but even that, being about the person's work and not the person and aspects of their existence they cannot control or their personal lives, is hardly personal.

I find it really baffling that HN seems to be so sensitive to what's, in my opinion, a relatively tame post with maybe some prickly flavor (which imo is completely understandable given the complete nonsense that had ensured with Bun post acquisition and their very public, and I think unfair, negative portrayal of Zig, intentional or not).

Maybe the only quoted text that I would read as a personal attack is

"already writing slop well before he had access to LLMs" and maybe "low empathy".

Just because the other bits are negative and not so nice pieces of feedback one wouldn't want to hear doesn't necessarily make them attacks.

An attack is often far more personal (making fun of you for aspects of your existence you can't control, touching personal subjects like families, etc). idk, maybe I'm just not soaked enough in the goo goo baby corporate saccharine LLM speak or something but this post felt tame to me, if a bit cheeky. Nothing but a thumb jab at worst.

What you are asking for is a slippery slope.

The history of humanity is full of biting polemics and attacks on the character of others, just read Voltaire. Sometimes, attacks are deserved.

Yes, a world in which everyone is professional and "plays nice" sounds great but it also quickly becomes a mechanism for suppression of the truth. Not the situation here, but "decorum" expectations are sometimes precisely one of the functions that help bad people maintain power (consider how difficult it can be for minorities or marginalized people to speak truthfully about what's happened to them). Sometimes one person being blunt, honest, and a little rude is a necessary step in clearing ground for others to be more upfront about the bad behavior of individuals.

I'm not anti-AI at all but to call people who don't want to use it "moral puritans" is laughable. It's hard to read that as anything other than a self-report on your own extreme nonchalance when it comes to the many ethical thickets surrounding this technology. While the possible benefits of AI in fields like medicine are promising, the concerns that a lot of people have about LLMs and the supporting infrastructure, power shifts, and more that have come along with them are diverse, serious, and completely understandable, and I can't imagine them being "puritan" to anyone other than those ruthlessly driven by nothing but capitalistic self-interest.

Kind of tangential to the man Rust v. Zig culture debate but:

I tried to get into Zig even chatted with Loris Cro when he was streaming. I was looking to explore what my Rust project could look like in Zig but there were features simply missing that I couldn't do without. The entire interaction was mostly about how bad Rust is and how I could just do something different in Zig (completely misunderstanding my ask, with little interest to explore my actual requirements).

Kind of reeks of unreasonable expectations to me. I don't think one should expect language designers to redesign a language or introduce new features that would likely be poor fits with the overall existing language philosophy (the design and usage philosophies behind Rust and Zig are practically opposite poles). Language stewards have a responsibility to everyone in their existing user base and they have a responsibility to evolve the language in a ways that's consistent with the expectations they already established (if they want to keep their users that is). Expecting the designers to rework the language to bolt on features from some other language just for your project is kind of absurd. I think Loris's supposed response is actually correct here and probably the best response he could give, without knowing more about precisely what the requests were, how willing you were to contribute work yourself, etc.

It seems the world is turning hostile to immigration in general - or maybe it is just the impression I get from the media? I don't know for sure.

I view it as growing pains. We inhabit a highly interdependent and interconnected world now, the economy is extremely global. Nation states as the primary governance model simply don't make sense anymore, and the world needs to adjust and find a new political organizing principle. The modern concept of nation state is itself a historical concept, it really arose approx. 18th cen. has worked ok for a while and now we need some new governance concept that is a better fit for our highly interconnected and global world.

What we are seeing now are reactions against what in my view is the inevitable decline of nation based organization and the formation of something else. The "old system" is acting out in an attempt to save itself, in a refusal to evolve. People don't like change. The writing is on the wall though. The degree to which every nation is now completely entangled with every other makes nations themselves as an operational concept inefficient and untenable.

A lot of people will view this as the decline of creative power in adulthood, but I actually think it's just a sign of maturity. Writing a lot of words when you are thirteen is easier for multiple reasons:

- You know less about the world, so bullshitting is easier because you don't know, and maybe don't care about the truth as much (in many senses, ranging from ensuring you aren't spreading misinformation in a nonfiction text to ensuring your fictional work has some plausibility) - It's easier to write a lot when you don't care about reading time. When you mature, you appreciate the preciousness of time, and understand that less is often more when it comes to written communication. - Your increased knowledge can also create a kind of analysis paralysis or associative fan effect on the brain that's fatiguing. Again, the curse of knowledge as an adult might actually make it harder to start something even though you have more "raw material" to work with (I personally think this is part of the reason a lot of artists stress "beginner's mind" so strongly (another huge component of it being open to randomness and happy accidents, or course)).

This looks really nice, great work so far! I see a macOS backend is still in development. I'd like to try the language out on macOS, so if I find the time I'll try to pitch in!

Amen. I never understood how such an avid blog reading community existed when, compared to published essays, the vast bulk of it is drivel. I guess I simply hadn't realized that many people out there may have never read a formal or published essay. What a shame.

The argument doesn't state that at all. It very clearly admits consciousness to nonhuman animals, for example.

Many investments are considered a liquid asset precisely because they are basically money.

You're missing the point on a stupid technicality.

If I have more liquid and therefore more purchasing and capital power than you, I have access to more resources than you, and I am immediately in a position in which I can potentially exploit you (get you to labor to generate more resources in exchange for some of the capital I have, then retain most of all of the newly generated capital and production from your labor for myself while paying you a fraction of what's generated because you are in a position of immediate need (need access to necessities) and I wasn't).

I think there is a massive difference between wanting power and wanting freedom and security from undue exploitation and/or economic hardship.

Most people I know don't "want power". They just want to be able to afford basic necessities (food, housing, clothing) without feeling like they are on the brink of survival every day.

Billionaires are starting to take the heat because people are starting to recognize that the wealth created for these billionaires is 100% dependent on their labor, time, and sweat, yet many of them see fractions of fractions of what the billionaires make. If it's somehow unfair for the billionaires to have to pay the government a wealth tax it is equally unfair for said billionaires to withhold so much of the capital generated by their workforces for themselves.

given back to society

I wouldn't necessarily categorize giving people opportunity to do underpaid, tenuous, non-career, zero-mobility gig work as "giving back to society" nor would I classify the unregulated harms of social media, phone additions, etc. as social good either. That's not to say some of these things aren't also good in many ways, but I also still don't understand why you think this somehow leads to a moral or social justification for unbounded levels of amassed wealth to a single individual.

Structural problems such as what? The idea that wealth is power? That's the same structural problem that has always existed, except that there are more players than ever before.

So your response to issues such as most people being unable to have a single living wage, rising homelessness, unaffordable housing, is "shrug wealth is power". This is not some kind of inviolable law of nature. We as human beings defining the terms of the game, can set up some legislation.

Learn history. America specifically has combated very similar issues in the past and curbing unimpeded accumulation and breaking up monopolies led to more innovation more diversity in the market and a better distribution of wealth. America has taxed the wealthiest classes more in the past and it wasn't a disaster. Look up the new deal.

You're not doing this, but when you try to have this conversation amongst the general population what is the response?

Who are you conversing with, me, or the general population? What do you mean when you try to ascribe a belief to the general population? Have you done polling on this? Or are you basing this on media? What are you actually talking about? Why are you so confident in arguing against some perceived hypothetical belief you think "the general population" holds? How do you know there aren't more people who actually agree with your perspective?

Who lowered that barrier? It was the billionaires

No. Scores of laborers employed by the billionaires lowered the barrier. Yes, many of the billionaires begin with a great idea, but there's no reason having an idea justifies having unbounded wealth. All enterprises depend on legions of people to actually materialize production. There is nothing written in nature that states that the person risking upfront capital should always be compensated more than the people who make production a reality, nor is there any corollary that states that the accumulation permitted should be completely unbounded.

You have convinced yourself that anyone not agreeing with your own belief is ruled by nothing but an emotional or psychological state rather than rational, but different, perspective. This is a perfect way to be a stubborn ass and ensure that no one will ever change your mind. It is anti-intellectualism at its finest. I hope one day you realize how foolish you are being about this.

Since you seem to be into super-reductive arguments, here's mine: we are all clearly hyper-dependent on one another on this planet. There is no reason people who make lots of money shouldn't have to give a reasonable portion of it back to the government and country that they draw labor, customers, and much more from daily. There is no reason that accumulation should be permitted without bound. It is pointless and leads to problems. We can and should argue for reasonable limits or at the very least taxation on massive wealth.

As for me, no envy here. I live comfortably and I am happy with what means I have, something most billionaires don't ever seem to experience. However, I also have eyes and functioning neurons so when I clearly see other human beings unable to afford basic necessities without feeling tremendous stress and pressure and then I see certain high-profile billionaires blowing money on dumb shit, underpaying and abusing workers (piss bottles) and more, I can understand why people want better guardrails in place, and no, wanting to limit the degree to which random people who got lucky in the market can exploit you is not envy.

I don't think anyone is simply envious. People mean to point out that allowing individual accumulation of wealth to extreme degrees lead to runaway structural problems. Billionaires and companies existing and providing wages are not inextricably intertwined. It's entirely possible to have one while preventing the other. The idea that the only way you can incentivize individuals to start companies is to allow them to accumulate so much wealth that they become tiny kings is patently absurd. The world has thousands of companies and founders who happily sustain their businesses without ever reaching this ungodly and idiotic level of uber wealth.