beyarkay
Joined 9 years ago
Karma
249
Submissions
85
Member since
Nov 21
Recent submissions
Comment · 2 months ago
Comment · 10 months ago
It says a lot that you didn't read 90% of a 2 minute essay
Comment · 10 months ago
very cool
Comment · 1 year ago
well said, yes this is the point I was (apparently failing) to make
Comment · 1 year ago
well, yes, exactly. I'm not trying to claim that old code is more reliable just because it was written a long time ago, I'm making the claim that old code is more reliable because of the survivorship bias. If code was first written 20 years ago and is still in production, unchanged, I can be relatively certain there's no stop-the-world bugs in those lines. (this says nothing about how pretty the code is, though).
Comment · 1 year ago
correct.
Comment · 1 year ago
Yes this is what I was trying to say. Code that's been in production for 20 years has less bugs than code that's been around for 20 minutes
Comment · 1 year ago
ah yes, one person understands the point I was trying to make (:
Comment · 1 year ago
I was maybe a little unclear with the phrasing, I meant to say "software that's been around for 20 years is more reliable than software that's been around for 2 months"
Comment · 1 year ago
Yeah this is my mistake, the phrase "can't you just turn it off" was in several drafts but got edited out, and I missed that during the publishing of the essay.
Comment · 1 year ago
Why did you think it a parody?
Comment · 1 year ago
> He is trying to lax the general public perception around AIs shortcomings
This is not at all what I'm trying to do. This same essay is cross-posted on LessWrong[1] because I think ASI is the most dangerous problem of our time.
> This "we can't fix a bug like in regular software" theatre hides the fact that we can design better benchmarks, or accountability frameworks
I'm not sure how I can say "your intuitions are wrong and you should be careful" and have that be misintepreted as "ignore the problems around AI"
[1]: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZFsMtjsa6GjeE22zX/why-your-b...
Say more? HTTP isn't mentioned in the article. The article talks about bugs in the parser that ingests token sequences.