adlpz

Thanks for this comment. It's an angle worth remembering.

A machine is not turing complete, but by running it recursively on its own output, turing completeness emerges.

Who knows at what stage of intricacy consciousness emerges?

Arguably, either it does at some point, or it never does and we requiere the supernatural soul.

So, if it does, we can't disregard the possibility that we've reached it already.

You sound fun...

This is HN. The trip is the destination, bla bla.

Presumably because you've read the first sentence, Telegram Serverless lets you run backend code for your bot and Mini App directly on Telegram's infrastructure, and were interested by the service/proposition enough to keep reading and then noticing it's LLM slop. :)

Sounds like it's free, so, why the hate? May as well have zero docs. I don't think they're trying to convince you of anything.

Wealth concentration beyond a point which would have resulted in widespread revolution 150 years ago, but that is now being tolerated because we've grown accustomed to a level of comfort we don't want to risk losing.

v0 / Claude Design does this these days. As in, I may be wrong here, but this aesthetic is a good clue that the site was designed by AI. These models seem to love this brutalist high contrast look.

probably at the same stage where a bunch of peptides activating some receptors and triggering the pumping of electrolytes in an out of lipid walls does, i guess

We've never been there.

With AI and robotics there may be the slim chance we get closer to that.

But we won't. Not because AI, but because humans, of course.

Your comment is nonsensical. Have you ever used any LLM?

Ask the LLM to... I don't know, to explain to you the chemistry of aluminium oxides.

Do you really think the average human will even get remotely close to the knowledge an LLM will return to such a simple question?

Ask an LLM to amend a commit. Ask it to initialize a rails project. Have it look at a piece of C code and figure out if there are any off-by-one errors.

Then try the same to a few random people on the street.

If you think the knowledge stored in the LLM weights for any of these questions is that of the average person I don't even know what to say. You must live in some secluded community of savant polymaths.

> And LLMs slurped some of those together with the output of thousands of people who’d do the task worse

Theoretically fixable, then.

> But it can’t. Not definitively and consistently

Again, it can't, yet, but with better training data I don't see a fundamental impossibility here. The comparison with any magic wand is, in my opinion, disingenuous.

> If you don’t think to do regular things, you won’t be able to think to do advanced things

Humans already don't think for a myriad of critical jobs. Once expertise is achieved on a particular task, it becomes mostly mechanical.

-

Again, I agree with the original comment I was answering to in essence. I do think AI will make us dumber overall, and I sort of wish it was never invented.

But it was. And, being realistic, I will try to extract as much positive value from it as possible instead of discounting it wholly.

I felt literal pain. Not kidding.

There's something to investigate here.

Made me notice I'm actually exposed to very similar crap on other places. Scary.