xhevahir

Andreas Papandreou is another example. Chairman of UC Berkeley's economics department, but his career as prime minister of Greece was marked by scandal and constitutional crisis.

FWIW he's primarily known as a writer of fiction and memoir, not as a professor. Interestingly, half of the other professors named are fiction writers.

I expect that AI use in the more axiomatic kinds of research will be well in advance of sciences that have a heavy, messy empirical foundation, like biology.

AI workflows don't seem to be suited to image-based environments like Smalltalk's, though.

It's usually spelled "Nietzschean," I think.

I don't know. I'm inclined to think that it's more visceral. At least a good part of its appeal, and the oldest. There's the famous example of slaughterhouses using calm, predictable music and consonant harmonies to calm their animals.

> The whole "it's better than me" is just re-asserted endlessly. Nobody even pretends to care about evidence.

The evidence that the AI tool is better than oneself? I don't know about you, but I think I'm a pretty good judge of whether Claude Code is better than I am, having seen my own work and Claude's firsthand.

> This is a fallacy. Computers are very deterministic, a well designed program will not have any bugs or unforeseen failures at all.

I don't know where you think you've found a fallacy. Computing systems are expected to interact in various ways with the outside world, which does include poppy farms, and people, and other decidedly imperfect things.

Except the worms will be in your oven, and from there they'll figure out how to get into your car.

So he's stipulating a definition of the word and then saying LLMs don't meet it. A more truthful title would be, "LLMs are not tools in my narrower, idiosyncratic sense of the word." Fine, but so what?

I can't tell whether making some kind of transhumanist argument in earnest or if you're only joking, or something else altogether.

The predominance of cars (and the alternative of mass transit) doesn't do anything to change the fact that some technology or technologies have scratched walking from many people's list of central activities, and that some people who have seen the ill effects of this change have found another, more or less corrective, place for it. I take that to be the author's meaning, and I agree with them that this would be a sad diminution of a fundamental human practice.

You created an account just to say this? :(