HN user

xjm

41 karma
Posts1
Comments27
View on HN

But ... if they were sentient, sentience would just happen for the time of a session, and only when tokens are being generated.

I don't think people here are arguing that sentience would happen when the model is not running, or that sentient experience spans several sessions that do not share some kind of state?

Also, a definition of consciousness is anyway hard to imagine :)

I find it much easier to see what is going on when selecting λ-calculus instead of Δ-Nets. E.g. for the mandatory Y Combinator,

λf.(λx.f (x x)) (λx.f (x x))

for which the difference with

λf.(λx.f (x x)) (λx.f (x x) f)

is very clear, whereas with Δ-nets the difference is more subtle. I guess it is because the visualization has more information than with the λ-calculus.

Thatcher told us, “There is no alternative.” In 1982, Bill Gibson refuted her thus: “The street finds its own uses for things.” I know which prophet I’m gonna follow.

Thanks to a free AI model that ran on my modest laptop, in the background while I was doing other work, I was able to write [an accurate quote]

He's right, but it sure sounds like a long fight made of small actions.

fixing the climate

I would be happy to be convinced that climate is an intelligence problem.

One could argue it could be solved with "abundant energy" but if this abundant energy comes from some new intelligence then we are probably several decades away from having it running commercially. I would also be happy to be convinced that we do have this kind of time to act for climate.

I counted one trillion or 9! * 3!^8 * 2 : the 8 because you have can choose 3 independent permutations of columns inside column blocks + 1 permutation of column blocks, plus same for rows. Then only one rotation should be counted, because flips are included in col/row permutations.

I think wreath products relate to the second sentence; see this page, which mentions the same result: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics_of_Sudoku#The_sudo...

A modular and safe way to achieve this is probably effect handlers. It's like python's yield but can return a value and is scoped like an exception, it's not local to a function call. If you're unfamiliar with it, this article is a good motivation.

Each function, written in direct style, can perform an "effect" when the function wants control to go somewhere else (for c=getchar() and emit(c) here).

Control then goes to the effect handler, in this case probably the caller of the two functions, which decides what to do next: decompressor emits a char? Let's resume the parser's code with the char until it asks for more, then resume decompressor again, etc.

Effects can be efficiently implemented, especially if the continuation is only allowed to be called once (which is the case in OCaml), and allow writing code in direct style, together with type/memory safety. They are also very helpful in a concurrent setting.

An example here : https://effekt-lang.org/docs/casestudies/lexer

In addition, even selfish people should care about loss of biodiversity if only because it facilitates disease transmission, and so is a threat to food security and public health.

Did not know that, thank you. However how do you know it will re-form just fine? The abstract says:

Instead, coal accumulation patterns implicate a unique combination of climate and tectonics during Pangea formation.

and I don't know how to determine if those conditions will happen again?

It doesn't fit "pure", but it solves the same problems the article is talking about, as other functional programming languages do.

In fact the article is excluding most functional languages by saying "pure", and then goes on with "Of the top dozen functional-programming languages, Haskell is by far the most popular" under the graph, which is wrong because it's missing "pure", a feature that is _not_ required to solve the problems that are being talked about.

So I agree on the initial point "Makes me suspect the article is not very well researched."