ModernMech

We're not talking about God, we're talking about a machine, here on Earth, we can poke and prod and explore and test. It's perfectly within the realm of logic to prove it can't do things. Can you prove the AI machine cannot solve the halting problem for arbitrary programs? Yes, that's a negative you can prove, so your objection about proving negatives needs qualification.

Asking you to justify a limitation you asserted doesn't mean I cannot be convinced. You're asserting Kernighan's law holds for AI, I'm saying there are other ways to debug than applications of cleverness. Does throwing more attempts at that spaghetti find vulnerabilities even when the thing that wrote it can't easily understand it? I'm not saying AI must be able to do it because you can't prove it can't. I'm asking what supports your claim that it can't.

No I gave up on arguing with you because I've already made my point perfectly clearly, you've made yours as well, there's nothing left to say without going in circles. The only reason I engaged further was because you attributed your words to me, which I found quite rude. If you're not going to apologize for that, then please just move on like I asked you 2 posts ago. Again, have a nice day.

This is a vibecoded project, not a resource for learning modeling for formal verification.

Well the AI machines don't have to rely on cleverness to find vulnerabilities, so maybe they're not limited by Kernighan's Law. Does throwing virtually unlimited sufficiently clever monkeys at spaghetti code find these vulnerabilities better than humans? Can you prove they can't?

They don't think they're going to fail or else they wouldn't be doing it. But they do think they need a government moat to succeed. Whether that's framed as a "bailout" or "regulation", it's still the government stepping in to save the day.

In terms of "act responsibly" what I mean in this case is the perception that there's a lot of money flowing in circles here, where customers are investors and investors are customers and competitors. That's how I see this whole party crashing down if it does, if there's too much creative accounting going on when the music stops, some companies might not find a chair to sit on.

You made a claim you can't support. Just move on. The numbers you're citing don't prove what you claimed, and they also don't support "an invasion of illegals" that's a political characterization. Net positive migration does not mean they want as many as possible, even if the numbers are larger than you want. You can ask ChatGPT for further explanation if you're still confused as to why, I'm not engaging with you further.

No, these companies know they don't have a moat, so have been laying the groundwork for a bailout (e.g. Altman pushing the idea of "Universal Basic Compute", essentially a forced subscription to ChatGPT through your taxes).

The politicians rising through the ranks now lived through 2008 as young adults, and they watched politicians cutting checks to companies who ruined the economy, only to emerge richer; while regular folk got foreclosed on and never recovered. They heard the rise of the phrase "too big to fail".

Well now we have a group of companies that clearly want to be too big, so now is exactly the time to make clear to them they aren't too big to fail. Maybe, just maybe if they know they can't count on a UBC bailout on the other side of a bubble pop, they will act a little more responsibly (which they have not demonstrated they're capable of that to date).

You first: would you feel punished if you were forcibly taken from your home and relocated to a country you've never been?

There are two axes here: whether something is a punishment, whether it's deserved. You've moved from arguing it's not a punishment to arguing it's deserved. So you need to give a straight answer.

Anyway, your posts have too many exclamation points and curses, so I don't want to engage anymore. Have a nice day.

Agreed, this is my unpopular opinion. The “moral framing” asks us to accept the absurd idea of “intellectual property”, and that someone who drew a picture without crediting or compensating everyone they leaned on to get the last 1%, somehow owns 100% of the proceeds thereafter.

AI represents the sum total of human knowledge and everyone who thinks they’re owned compensation for their last mile contributions, which build on centuries of human existence and knowledge-making, are just leaning into the pro capital idea that whoever owns a thing controls a thing. In reality when you put something out into the world, whatever it is, it takes a life of its own and you don’t really get to own or control that.

These artists and programmers and writers think they’re owned compensation because they “own” what they create but they do not. They in fact owe a debt to everyone who came before them they must pay forward. AI took that debt and made it tangible.

You’re arguing that the punishment is deserved, not that it isn’t punishment.

That was "Don't be evil" Google. This is "Do the right thing" Google, completely different. Here, "right" means "what's best for the company" and if that means bending the knee to a wannabe dictator, that's the right thing.

The numbers say Biden's immigration policies contributed to historically high unauthorized immigration, that deportations did not keep pace with arrivals, and that the administration failed to enforce immigration restrictions effectively. They don't say they wanted unlimited illegal immigration. They especially don't say that about Obama, who had Bush-level numbers.

What evidence shows that Obama and Biden wanted to actually maximize illegal immigration, as opposed to having different enforcement priorities or failing to control immigration effectively? Noting again that they were ready to pass a bill and sign it into law, but Trump tanked it.

It seems to me if there's a problem, and people want to fix it, but someone says "no", it's that person who wants the problem to persist.