habitue

Bun obviously: they swapped the engine under claude code from zig bun to rust bun and it worked fine.

pgrust, high profile rewrites all over the place.

When you have an oracle to check behavior against, it is really easy to build a robust testing machine with property tests against the original.

Not necessarily, a rewrite can just move to a language that's easier to maintain (off C / cobol).

Honestly though, it's pretty clear the AI rewrites work, we have a ton of high profile examples. It's just a holdover attitude about rewrites from before AI. In reality, AI is going to make the code better when it rewrites

Why exactly? Even after this move, iPhone is less open. Apple doesn't have the 24h escape hatch.

Now people just wonder why you didn't write it in rust

It was intentional, sure. It was an attempt to solve a particular kind of problem.

In hindsight though, it was a mistake.

Evidence: when the world moved to 64 bit, we didnt just let int mean 8 bytes on amd64. That's a clear acknowledgement that the design was not correct once we understood things better.

Ideas can stand for themselves, the quote can stand for itself. You don't need to take all the things Tolstoy ever said and average their badness to decide whether a quote is true. You can read it yourself and see if it resonates with how you think of things.

Similarly, if you find that the quote resonates with you, you are not on the hook as endorsing every bad thing he ever did, or stupid thing he ever said.

Exact match on a typo brings up a submission with that typo, which is likely low quality

[flagged]

I'm no Musk fanboy but I think this kind of maximally cynical take is tiresome. They thought it would work, they expended significant engineering effort and money making it real and producing it and selling it to customers.

The simplest explanation is that they did all that and the market didn't want it. The economics of traditional panels outweighed the aesthetic advantages of tiles and they're pivoting. No conspiracy or fraud need be invoked.

I am confused about why Gary Marcus thinks it's so obvious that Claude isn't conscious. As he points out, Dawkins is just taking a bog-standard behaviorist position: that he can't distinguish Claude from a conscious being just by the behavior here.

Marcus is saying "Well, if you knew they were trained to mimic, then you'd understand it's just mimicry and not real consciousness" The problem with this argument is that we just don't have a good idea what "real consciousness" is. What if, in order to simulate human text prediction with sufficient accuracy, the model has to assemble sub-networks internally into something equivalent to a conscious mind? We could disprove that kind of thing really quickly if we knew how to define consciousness really well, but we kinda don't!

Philosophers are genuinely split on this question, it's totally reasonable to be on either side of this based on your personal intuition. Marcus's position seems to be actually based on his own personal incredulity, despite his claims that understanding LLM training methodology gives him some special insight into the internal experience (or lack thereof) of an LLM.

(The Claude Delusion is a banger title though)

The first edition is expensive. The current edition is ~$90 for a full color hardcover (expensive but not ruinius if you really want it)

Sometimes, in the interest of having something rather than nothing, I have to press publish. This entails getting things wrong, which is regrettable.

I will say, that I'm trying to steelman the code-as-assembly POV, and I dont think the exact historical analogy is critical to it being right or wrong. The main thing is that "we've seen the level of abstraction go up before, and people complained, but this is no different" is the crux. In that sense, a folk history is fine as long as the pattern is real