hibernator149

All intuitions are wrong, but some are usefull. You have to do the experiment, discover the formula, and then adapt your intuitions accordingly.

That was my favorite one too. Probably because it is basically Outer Wilds in real life.

Wait, isn't that just Doublethink from 1984? Holding two opposing thoughts is a sign that your mental model of the world is wrong and that it needs to be fixed. Where have you heard that maxim?

"Leaders" have to stop pretending that they know better than the developers who are actually doing the work. Let the developers decide how their "Developer Experience" should look like instead of deciding it top down. Show some real humility.

A good example from the article is AI. Leaders think it is the greatest thing, but two out of three developers don't see the benefit. This needs to be solved bottom up. Devs love new shiny tools that make them more productive or that make work more fun. That's why we invent a new framework or language every three days. If the two out of three developers can't find a way to make AI work for them, then their non-technical leaders surely won't help.

Your intuition is correct. I think you accidentally swapped %s and %d in one of your previous posts, leading to the confusion.

The "backwards" in the article is referring to the way the list is processed by the recursive function. The list and the resulting type are in the correct/intuitive order. I also found this sentence confusing.

By the way, thinking of a function of type a->b->c as a->(b->c) is technically correct and useful in certain cases, for example, when you are currying. But in most cases you can just read this as a function taking two arguments of types a and b, returning something of type c.

Thank you for being such a great example of the exact behavior the article is talking about.

LLMs are really good at system 1 thinking (fast, intuitive) but can't do system 2 (planning, calculating) at all. Just like in Go/Baduk, neural net based AIs were good at tactical play but fell apart against pro players with good long term strategy. Until NNs were combined with Monte Carlo Tree Search and we got AlphaGo with great tactical and strategial play.

We need a good search strategy that fits LLMs before we can get AGI. Maybe Chain Of Thought can become such a strategy, but it always felt too clunky to me.

> The blame squarely falls at the IA's feet; being an idealist doesn't give you the rights to delve into illegal behavior

This way of thinking is the reason why we are losing so many great things. Laws are created by people to support a society we want to live in. When laws no longer sever the society, then the society must rise up and change them. Like with any bug, fixing it early is cheaper than fixing it later.

> it's clear to me who is culpable

"Look what you made me do. If you hadn't acted up I wouldn't have had to destroy you."

Upper management are just average people with better networking and less empathy. They fall for fads and FOMO just like everyone else.

Why not both? Pharma and Social Media profit from depressed people. Nothing ever has a single root cause. There are always multiple causes often working together in a vicious cycle. Also, what's wrong with vibrators?

Honest question because I'm curious. What is your definition of an introvert and how do you know you are one?

What useful thing could the AI do that it can't do any longer?

Interesting take. But why not skip the ChatGPT middleman with its fake positivity and just send the unedited info from the prompt? It contains the same info and is even more concise. But that's probably just my INTJ with ascendent Pisces speaking ;)

I found that it is really hard to go against the mainstream of the bubble you live in for two reasons: Let's take issue X as an example. One side says X is always true, the other that it is always false. But you think that actually "it depends". The two problems are then:

(1) When you don't fully agree with your bubble on X, the more extreme ones will assign you to the opposite bubble and shun you.

(2) There are people in the opposite bubble that will pretend to believe X "depends" in order to lure less extreme members over to their own bubble. And many in your bubble will believe that you are one of those.

We are so caught up in our tribal thinking that many will simply not believe that you genuinely think "it depends".

I believe that this is "by design", that someone is dividing and conquering the public. Many will agree with me here, and then they will finish with "but the other side is too brainwashed to notice"... Knowing that it is a trap, does not help you to avoid it ;)