asgraham

This has unfortunately been the case in experimental academia forever.

Ehhhh:

1) You can merge a "new change" to fix a merge, instead of reverting

2) It's unclear whether the substance of their individual PRs are the same. Never thought I'd want an LOC metric.

3) Really, I'm going to double down on the idea that merges could be fixing merges. Also happens to increase the merge metric.

1. Yeah, I’m not fully sold on the argument. I’m also oversimplifying it quite a bit by saying it’s just “brainless, repetitive.” That’s just where it’s obvious. But at the same time, my understanding of 95% of the current math results is that they are sort of the result of AI doing dull repetitive theory work, rather than inspired novel thinking. Either way, the article’s point is that the way we use intelligence to do work will change, not that the current cream of the crop will be unaffected.

2. A major and weird point of the article argues that most people are “stupid” because of a lack of incentives for intellectual labor. If you know you’re not that top 1%, why bother in school? If you’ve already missed the window for a fancy white collar job, why bother “thinking”? In this view, AI could have a democratizing effect on intellectual labor.

3. That does seem to be the upshot, but the author doesn’t seem to be very sympathetic to AI execs either (basically calling them rent seekers still in the mercantilist mindset despite developing the “transformative technology”). Still article doesn’t offer any path forward.

But… that’s exactly the substance of this argument. I’m not sold on the full extent of the metaphor and I’m definitely not out here cheerleading AI, but the central argument of this article is this analogy: when you say “but humans work to eat” you’re echoing exactly the concerns during the Industrial Revolution (slash advent of capitalism, depending how you and the article want to look at it).

Will that analogy hold? Who knows. But it’s more than a facile AI bro saying AI is bringing us a utopia. The article even raises a key part of the analogy: the transition to industry and capitalism (and the resulting freed up labor) led to an unprecedented wave of revolutions and death.

That’s not really what it’s saying. The analogy it draws is between subsistence farmers and subsistence thinkers aka white collar workers/paper pushers etc. The argument would be that repetitive, brainless thinking will no longer be required (not thinking in general), so people will be freed up for currently unimaginable cognitive pursuits.

Most people need to be reminded of this. Repeatedly.

I would be shocked if there’s an agreed upon list, certainly not one supported by neuro recordings. You’re probably well-served by coming up with a good set by your own informal observation.

To clarify slightly, K and V are used to construct the dictionary, and then Q is the lookup key D[Q] as described (with the lookup being based on similarity rather than exact hash as it would be in an actual dictionary).

I’m not deeply pro-codex, but it does have all those features. Who knows since when.

My question from (2) would be: is Symbolics still not on par with SymPy?

I don’t know why you’re getting downvoted. If they say “you’re giving us your copyright when you press the POST button” then that would seem to be that.

Seems like a bad place for them to be, given the whole argument of “you can’t sue us for what other people said on our platform, that’s not our speech!” but that seems complicated and IANAL.

Clients are not proxies. The fundamental difference is who accesses the target server. If you’re using a client (in the sense of a local program that renders your request, like a browser or a browser with extensions) then you are the one accessing the information, and once you have that information it’s hard to make a legal argument against transforming it however you want for your own consumption.

But a proxy means you request information from someone else, not from the target server, and the proxy requests from the target server. This is also fine! Except: a) the target server can absolutely say “Proxy A is not allowed to access me.” [1] and b) if the target server has copyright on the material being requested, then the proxy may be violating that copyright by making the data available for your request.

[1] there’s a weird middle ground here where if a server can tell you’re using a client it doesn’t like, then technically it could use its arbitrary denial ability to deny access on that basis, but that doesn’t seem to be legally accepted? IANAL. Or maybe that just doesn’t happen because there’s no way for it to tell what client you’re using. They certainly do try to deny service when they can figure out you’re using an ad-blocker.

I have heard multiple people say almost that exact sentence unironically.

Sure, and usually one of the ways Rust serves us is with safety guarantees.

Which isn’t to say this optimization is a bad idea, just to say it’s sort of a straw man to imply coding in Rust to take advantage of safety guarantees is “serving Rust”

Microwaving takes less attention and less skill, though. And less cleanup. And you don’t need to own a pan. And you don’t need to own spices (steak is a bad example ofc). And you don’t need to think about the side dishes. And you don’t need to agree on what’s for dinner. And I think it’s worth repeating, you don’t need any skill and can’t really screw it up. And you don’t need to worry about it going bad because you were too lazy to cook it. Etc.

Processed food may not be cheaper, but the flavor:effort ratio is waaaaaay higher.