jlebar

The polishing cloth may be a joke, but I will say that I love the nano-texture display on my laptop. Expensive, and whether it's worth it to you is a personal evaluation. But I think it's awesome, and most people I talk to don't even know it's an option!

Implicit assumption of gp is that the README is llm authored. (Which, I agree is how it reads to me.)

I mean, I would say that preventing 40% of disease (depending on what you're measuring, etc etc) is not marginal. I guess I'd turn it around and ask, if 40% is marginal, what number would not be marginal, and why do you draw the line there?

(For me, "marginal" would mean that the costs were roughly equal to the benefits. I think you'd have a hard time convincing me that saving the lives of even just 1% of the people who would normally die from the flu -- between 10k and 50k people a year -- is roughly equivalent to the cost of giving out flu shots. I suppose you could argue that the benefit is marginal to individuals who have a low probability of dying from the flu, and marginal to a society which has relatively low vaccination rates overall.)

The other thing is that, according to the Claude data here, the vaccine is actually relatively effective at preventing the transmission of some flu variants, 50% effective against influenza B! If so, there would be a clear group benefit to that, you only need (1 - 1/1.3) / 0.5 = 46% of people to be vaccinated to achieve herd immunity to that strain.

> Generally, trace compilation is a dead end and has been abandoned repeatedly.

JAX is a tracing compiler!

(I know, I know, it sits in an extremely different part of the problem space than TraceMonkey or LuaJIT. Still.)

> Whenever I read about formal specs it always seems to me like “write the same tests just in a different way”, or worse, “write the same implementation but in a different way”. [...] Can anyone enlighten me?

A big difference is that formal methods allow you to use the "for all" quantifier.

For example, you might write a unit test that says "foo('abc') returns a string with no trailing whitespace".

But with formal methods, you can prove that "for any input x, foo(x) returns a string with no trailing whitespace".

This is a trivial example, but you could imagine something more complicated, such as "for any program P, compile(P) has the same behavior as P".

Of course, you have to define what "has the same behavior as" means!

Author here; I'm happy to answer questions, take criticism, etc etc.

> The historical automation story seems to be that technology replaces workers, and those workers typically end up taking lower-paying jobs

As I said, when farming became more efficient, it wasn't great to be a farmer.

But when I say (and I assume everyone else here also says) "I don't want to go back to a world where 90% of people had to be farmers" (because farming was so inefficient), that's another way of saying, the world that farming efficiencies gave us is richer / more preferable overall than the previous world. In other words, the economic surplus did not go exclusively or primarily to the richest.

I expect the same will be true for AI. I think our society should do more to help the displaced. But I do not want my grandchildren to live in a world where, 100 years from now, 90% of people are still doing jobs that could be done by a computer, but we choose for the computer not to do them. Just like I wouldn't want to have to be a farmer.

> There’s no reason, even under capitalism that we must allow all of the productivity gains to accrue to the benefit of solely those at the top of an enormous pile of wealth.

I would question the premise that all or even most of the productivity gains of any past technological improvement have accrued to the benefit of solely those at the top of an enormous pile of wealth.

200 years ago 90% of Americans lived on farms. In the early 1900s, it was 40%. Today that number is 2%.

The economic surplus from that increase in productivity accrued to everyone in society, not just the wealthy. (The evidence for this is that we are all living at a higher standard of living today than we were in the early 1800s or 1900s.)

But certainly the positive supply shock was not great news for farmers, many of whom lost their jobs. In the case of AI, I'm asking us -- programmers -- not to make the mistake of saying "this is not a benefit for me, therefore it's not a benefit for society".

> Choices are made by people who have power and imposed upon people who don't.

In a capitalist society, choices are made according to supply and demand.

In a world where there's a positive supply shock (in this case, there's a lot more programming available for purchase today than there was a year ago), supply goes up. We therefore expect the price for the good to decrease.

This has nothing to do with power or whether people care about xyz. It's a consequence of the economic system we live under.

You can desire to live under a different economic system! That's logically coherent. But if you want the laws of supply and demand not to apply to you, that's what you're asking for.

Honestly I'm getting tired of this narrative. People take the benefits of capitalism for granted (indeed most of us on this forum do very well for ourselves relative to the average person in our country and around the world), but we blame all of its downsides on "bad people".