cx42net

The way I see it, they are two types of ("technical") peoples:

The ones that loves the technicity, the challenge of building something, putting complex things together, the puzzle part of creating something.

The ones that wants to have stuff build to use them, were coding was just a mean to an end. (DHH mentioned in his podcast with Lex Fridman, that he is more in this category)

For the later, AI is the perfect tool that could come around, removing that barrier that was stopping them to achieve their needs (which you appear to be part of, I'm saying this without no jugement)

The writer of the blog post is in the former category.

Lots of dead comments here. I wonder what happened (the links I tested appears to work so it's not the reason. The posts appears to respect HN guidelines too, at least there are no insults or bad comments)..

Thank you for these links. Reading about pancognitivism and self sustaining closure is showing how complex the notion of consciousness can be, how its definition can vary from person to person. It also show how easy it can be for LLMs to give the illusion of consciousness when this is not clearly defined.

Thank you for your reply.

At first, I thought I had wrongly explained myself, so I checked what I wrote. Maybe it wasn't clear but I'm not looking for consciousness in the LLM era, but more about the philosophical research on what defines consciousness and the parallels that can be done with the LLMs era (parallels not in the sense of similitude, but in the sense of things that would appear similar but are not).

In a more generic and simple example, LLMs are good at producing language that resonates with us, and because of that, could be believed they have thoughts (they can write things like "I think you should .."), even thought they are not capable of thoughts, and are only producing the next logical word one after the other.

In the same sense, it would be interesting to read about philosophers that tried to define what consciousness is (or is not) and their age isn't relevant to today's LLM era. The connection can be done by the reader on what consciousness is, and what LLM is not, in the same vein as what thought and language is between our species and LLMs.

I'm not sure this more clear ^

I agree with you here, this is an odd reaction to a non-problem.

A real-life scenario would be to refuse your snail mail because someone added an extra line in your address.

The only plausible reason would be to avoid polluting the data (like faking the ref= for marketing purpose) but that would assume you are already tracking the ref value for other services, so in a way, you either need it or not, but you can't have both.

If you don't actively track query strings, having them or not has no impact.

Thank you for this clarification. I'm sad to learn I wasn't far from right on this.

So your whole point is the *hypothetical* "what if Bluesky turns bad".

And just with that hypothetical, you scratch the whole effort Bluesky is currently doing to offer an open protocol ? Which is the opposite of almost (Mastodon) all other social networks ?

Come on..

It honestly feel like this was written by someone being paid by a competitor, just to discredit the service.

Of course they will provide an infrastructure to ease users on to creating and using their service, they can't just provide an empty shell just for the pure purpose of decoupling the protocol and the service. You can't blame them for that (well, you can apparently..)

> "Stack Overflow was multiplayer. A million developers contributing solutions that benefited everyone. We replaced it with a billion isolated sessions that benefit no one else".

This.

(Thank you!)