lex-lightning

Dope. Thanks.

Have you written much Prolog?

I was thinking about in Prolog terms and I think it’s the hardest paradigm to avoid the scoping problem in

Are you better at inventing than the worker is?

Are your subsequent inventions better than the art they create?

Do we really need double the widgets?

I mean, the top post on this site yesterday was a self-balancing cube someone invented. This is precisely the community that should understand that inventions for inventions’ sake aren’t necessarily improving anything.

I’ve asked Bing about sexual health questions and been told it’s not okay to talk about that.

I asked it a question about Christianity and it stated things with the tone and certainty of a preacher.

Just gross. And worse to put something like that in the hands of billionaires.

I am somewhat of a doomer not because I think it will be the Terminator. More like AI theocracy here we go.

Count me unimpressed too

Bing Copilot can’t even answer simple questions about businesses in a particular city without lying. When confronted, it will apologize and then repeat the same text verbatim.

Zero reasoning happening.

If I wanted to deeply pedantic, I think the blocks associated with those monady bits keep the parameters in scope longer than needed.

But I never got into Haskell so I don’t really know.

I’m a contrived idea man, not a contrived solution man, damnit.

What if someone works 30 hours a week performing a service which is not yet automated, but uniquely theirs, like their own standup comedy.

Contrast that with the replicable software example.

I still don’t fold clothes. I just buy stuff that doesn’t wrinkle. Work smarter not harder.

In the first case no, in the second yes.

Great that you reduced the need to work. You are a hero to society.

Not great to use that as a reason to control others.

Devil’s advocate: they’re both clerks and the liquor store is more dangerous, so yes they should be paid more

Hey I’m down to party with some monads, but I leave that as an exercise to the reader.

One note: each variable only gets assigned to once, so FP won’t magic that away.

The side effects might have a different way of management in FP. But the IO will happen in the same order in reality anyway.

So I don’t think there’s a way out, but I honestly would be interested to see it.

The logarithmic decay could be more about more and more people hitting their satisfaction level, than about what the wealth can purchase. In other words, very few people actually want to be billionaires.

Or more simply: most people want to retire.

I think genuinely most people don’t want to exert power over others, so the value doesn’t increase for most