lumb63

That’s not what GP is saying. He’s saying that a term like “autism” is a lasso trying to capture a gigantic number of individual traits and symptoms. This is true of any other “psychiatric disorder” as well. There is no “autism”, there is no “ADHD”, there is no “OCD”, any more than there are tables or chairs.

Something being a table is a label we slap on it to abstract certain attributes, that allows us to reason about it without having to think about all of the non-table-attributes it has. What do tables do? What can we do with them? We can put things on, eat off them. We can’t feed them to our pets. We can’t use them as a trampoline. The object being “a table” is just a categorization we make to allow us to think about the object; it isn’t something that the object is.

Similarly, people aren’t “autistic”. They’re just people, who have certain traits, which psychiatrists have decided should be lumped into a category called “autism”, because they’ve noticed a cluster of other people who have similar traits. So, from this standpoint, someone “being autistic” does not tell us anything. We can already see that person’s traits or characteristics. That categorization might be helpful to some people, and it might be harmful to other people; and they should use or avoid using it accordingly. But they can choose to do that, because “autism” isn’t a “thing” - it’s a mental construct.

I believe we all intuitively push whatever our advantages are, often without even knowing it. The advantage that the wealthy have are connections, capital, and familial support. These advantages lend themselves to activities such as starting businesses with high capital requirements, accumulating assets (“investing”), working through elite colleges to land a prestigious position, heading a philanthropy or charity, etc.

That advantage comes with a disadvantage. Because the wealthy do not have to work to earn their start, they never learn what hard work is capable of producing, and never build the “when the going gets tough, the tough get going” habit. What they have in money, they lack in grit. When they are faced with a challenge, they habitually say “what can I buy to solve this problem?”, “who can I consult to help me with this problem?”, etc.

Contrast that with folks who are working class. They know that they don’t have the advantage of money. They learn that hard work is the behavior that yields the best outcome. They put themselves in fields where what you get is proportional to what you put in, such as the trades, where working long, hard hours can generate quite good income.

When folks who were raised working class are faced with adversity, they handle the situation like Boxer from Animal Farm: “I will work harder”. It’s what they know how to do. While they don’t have copious sums of money to fall back on, or other natural advantages, their own work ethic is one of the few things that cannot be taken away from them, and so they leverage that.

That advantage also comes with disadvantages. Someone who works very hard will likely be overly self reliant. They might not get as much done as they could have had they spread the load across other people. They might burn themselves out, injure themselves, work to the exclusion of all other goals in life, etc.

These are vast generalizations that obviously won’t hold in all circumstances, but I think it’s useful to illustrate the point. People use the tools at their disposal, whether that be money or otherwise. Those strategies all have advantages and disadvantages. The net result of those is likely visible in the outcomes of various people, I’d bet.

Gifts definitely confer obligations on the recipient. You can experience this firsthand: take the next gift a loved one gives you, and then sell it, and let them know. Please report back on how you selling their gift impacts your relationship with that person.

People can license their code however they please, but comparing open source software to a gift is not an argument for permissive licenses.

I suspect that this is an instance where “the scientific consensus” is wrong because to suggest contrary to that is wrongthink and enough to have one ostracized not only from science, but also society as a whole. I would love to be wrong, so if someone could explain this to me, I’d be very receptive to an explanation of why this logic is wrong:

First, let’s substitute emotionally charged terms for more neutral terms; e.g. imagine rather than discussing intelligence and race, we are discussing something else highly heritable and some other method of grouping genetically similar individuals, e.g. height and family. The analogous claim would therefore be that “although height differences have a large hereditary component, it does not follow that disparities in height between families have a genetic basis.” This seems very clearly false to me. It is in the realm of “I cannot fathom how an intelligent person could disagree with this” territory for me. If variable A has a causative correlation with variable B and two groups score similarly with respect to variable A, then they are probably similar with respect to variable B. Of course there are other variables, such as nutrition, sleep, and what have you, but that does not eliminate a correlation. In fact, for something which is “highly heritable” it seems to me that genetics would necessarily be the predominant factor.

It’s a really unfortunate conclusion, so again, I’d love to be wrong, but I cannot wrap my head around how it can be.

You and parent comment are not going to see eye to eye because of different definitions of “quality”. They are using the term synonymously with the economic idea of “utility”. To them, a higher-quality item is that which provides them the most value.

To the contrary, you are using “quality” to mean something else; maybe you could elaborate on what “quality” is to you, what characteristics make something “high quality”, and why the categories you’ve used to measure quality are the “right ones”.

There seems to me to be a false dichotomy present in a lot of the comments here: either Google funds all web browsers, or all the web browsers will crash and burn and the modern web will die.

Linux is a project spanning many decades with thousands of contributors and is not owned by any company. The BSDs are similar. I do not see why something similar cannot be accomplished with the web; a group of FOSS developers, and eventually, perhaps full-time developers at all manner of companies, could support a modern web browser. This seems to work fine for Linux - many companies pay developers to work on Linux because their business depends on it, so it is a good investment for them. The same applies for web browsers - many companies’ businesses depend on it, so funding a browser is the cost of doing business.

Everyone is quick to deride this move as stupid. I don’t disagree that there are downsides to the approach, but there is a set of very real national problems that this might address.

For instance, globalization and offshoring of production has made goods cheaper for consumers, but what about the former domestic producers who could not compete, and do not have the skills or capital to find a new job which pays as well? Increased foreign competition pulls down domestic wages; telling people that they should shut up and be okay with that because they can get cheaper goods isn’t palatable to a lot of people facing the negatives of globalization. Globalization has played a big role in creating the massive income inequality in our country; it seems like we should fix that.

There really are structural challenges to onshoring production due to strength of the dollar due to its reserve currency status; our society as such is biased heavily toward importing goods rather than exporting goods. This is a real challenge that needs to be addressed as well.

Our national debt is not sustainable either. Either we pay it down some, or we inflate it away; these are the two ways it goes away, ignoring the option of a world-shattering default on the debt. Tariffs accomplish both of those, raising money at the same time as raising cost of goods and weakening the dollar.

So, to anyone who disagrees with these measures, but agrees that these are issues we ought to solve, what would you propose?

A lot of folks in child comments are echoing your sentiment that something “cannot be proved safe”. Your argument that proving something is “not unsafe” is proving a negative is fallacious; the same can literally be said about anything (proving something is X is the same as proving it is not not-X). Proving drugs are safe and effective is literally one of the jobs of the FDA. If you do not believe that is possible, then we may as well tear down the entire drug regulatory apparatus. I imagine you and many other commenters will sing a different tune when posed with that suggestion.

So, let’s stop pretending it’s not possible. We require drug companies show their products are safe and efficacious, and there is both a scientific and a legal framework by which we do this. Let’s debate whether or not the same framework should be applied to food additives (I would argue it should) rather than claim it is not possible.

I live near Boston. Part of the housing supply issue here is the mandate for a certain amount of “affordable housing” in all new developments (I forget the percentage, on the order of 10-20% of new units?). This results in either housing not being built, since the developer would not be able to earn enough on the sale of the building due to below-market rent payments, or the non-“affordable housing” units have to pay above-market rates to subsidize/offset the below-market-rate units.

This drives me nuts, because the goal should be for 100% of housing to be affordable. Stifling development or shifting the unaffordability to different areas of the income distribution do not solve the problem. More housing has to get built. This is a supply-demand issue, as anyone with basic economic knowledge can tell you. There are two ways out: people relocate, or more housing gets built.

It has nothing to do with LLMs, but Ghidra is a wonderful tool.

Does this desire to want to know things about people you no longer associate with, not strike you as strange? There is no actual communication here - on one end, there is someone who either has no group of people whom they feel care about their update, so they “share” it with everyone; or, they are so conceited as to think everyone on the entire internet cares. On the other end is someone who does not know what they want updates about, but knows that they want updates from some set of people (but does not want the updates enough to actually talk to those people). This mode of “communication” has for a long time struck me as very strange.

This is another instance of “privatized profits, socialized losses”. Trillions of dollars of market cap has been created with the AI bubble, mostly using data taken from public sites without permission, at cost to the entity hosting the website.

Famously, the last 10% takes 90% of the time (or 20/80 in some approximations). So even if it gets you 80% of the way in 10% of the time, maybe you don’t end up saving any time, because all the time is in the last 20%.

I’m not saying that LLMs can’t be useful, but I do think it’s a darn shame that we’ve given up on creating tools that deterministically perform a task. We know we make mistakes and take a long time to do things. And so we developed tools to decrease our fallibility to zero, or to allow us to achieve the same output faster. But that technology needs to be reliable; and pushing the envelope of that reliability has been a cornerstone of human innovation since time immemorial. Except here, with the “AI” craze, where we have abandoned that pursuit. As the saying goes, “to err is human”; the 21st-century update will seemingly be, “and it’s okay if technology errs too”. If any other foundational technology had this issue, it would be sitting unused on a shelf.

What if your compiler only generated the right code 99% of the time? Or, if your car only started 9 times out of 10? All of these tools can be useful, but when we are so accepting of a lack of reliability, more things go wrong, and potentially at larger and larger scales and magnitudes. When (if some folks are to believed) AI is writing safety-critical code for an early-warning system, or deciding when to use bombs, or designing and validating drugs, what failure rate is tolerable?

I’ve not followed this story at all, and have no idea what is true or not, but generally when people use a boatload of adjectives which serve no purpose but to skew opinion, I assume they are not being honest. Using certain words to describe a situation does not make the situation what the author is saying, and if it is as they say, then the actual content should speak for itself.

For instance:

> Much of this unfounded skepticism is driven by a deeply flawed non-peer-reviewed publication by Cheng et al. that claimed to replicate our approach but failed to follow our methodology in major ways. In particular the authors did no pre-training (despite pre-training being mentioned 37 times in our Nature article),

This could easily be written more succinctly, and with less bias, as:

> Much of this skepticism is driven by a publication by Cheng et al. that claimed to replicate our approach but failed to follow our methodology in major ways. In particular the authors did no pre-training,

Calling the skepticism unfounded or deeply flawed does not make it so, and pointing out that a particular publication is not peer reviewed does not make its contents false. The authors would be better served by maintaining a more neutral tone rather than coming off accusatory and heavily biased.