Hacker News Reader

> Thinking that computer software must be exempt from that mess as a goal is just strange

Software is deterministic, it has been since its inception[0]. Why go from something objective/provable to something that does "strange things", when we already have former? It's like making bricks out of paper and declaring "actually, this is logical next step for bricks because stuff waves in the wind".

> What if our lives get much, much better?

What if not?

[0] (Yes not really/actually if we're being pedantic)

> Why go from something objective/provable to something that does "strange things", when we already have former?

Because we like computers to feel like they are fast, mainly. Most compilers, for example, are non-deterministic because they can be made to run faster if they ignore things like thread execution order. Same goes for LLMs. Technically they are as deterministic as any other software, but we allow GPUs to play fast and loose with floating point numbers to speed things up, which gives the impression of "strange things".

Here is a simple and possibly clarifying thought experiment: Would you be willing to switch your standard of living with the standard of the median person living on this planet? (And I would urge you to look up what that looks like, in case you are unsure).

As long as you are not (and I sympathize) I have zero clue how to justify any delay in getting everyone at least to our current level.

I understand that there are risks and we should work hard to guard against them. But no society has seriously considered giving up driving while we figure out global warming. People want a good life, that's just the selfish fucks we are, and it's upon those with clout to will it for everyone.

> Why go from something objective/provable to something that does "strange things", when we already have former?

Because it does something different. It's not from/to. LLMs are subbing in for humans, not for deterministic computing. Replacing deterministic computing with LLMs for tasks that have be perfectly solved without LLMs would be wasteful and silly.

This is completely incoherent. Of course we need deterministic computer programs; much of society depends on it.

All software written will not disappear. There is nothing keeping us from using partly undeterministic software (see: humans) to write deterministic programs.

What does the N in NP stand for?

I'm a bit joking, but we've been working in deterministic computation for so long, we don't even think of there being another way.

But seriously, I do view AI as the input to a deterministic machine. Junior engineers (well all engineers) aren't deterministic, and we've made processes to direct their behavior towards making better software. AI agents do a better job of following my processes than engineers. We move up the stack towards testing and verification rather than writing. That doesn't make me sad, after 40 years of coding, I'm kind of tired of it. I have more ideas than I can code, so I'm happy to give AI my ideas and have it code for me.

I had a former manager tell me that all technology problems are really people problems, now maybe all technology problems are all agent problems and we just have to get comfortable with managing agents like we got comfortable with managing people.

> How could we possibly morally justify denying everyone the best shot to get at least to that level, and I mean living people RIGHT NOW, ASAP not in a few hundred years?

How exactly do you think this is going to happen?

By trying! How else is it going to happen? Are we going to deny the immense potential? Nobody needs to draw up a specific plan for that to hold true, we are good at figuring shit out and using tools.

I am not saying it's going to work but we are not getting much smarter right now, and we really need all the help we can get to accelerate more complicated stuff.

And it is accelerating! Will it be as useful as I hope it will be? That is entirely beside the point. This post was not at all about me assigning any chance of the good outcome. Just that there is no other ethical option.

> By trying! How else is it going to happen? Are we going to deny the immense potential?

Trying what, though? What is it? Immense potential for what? So far this entire comment doesn't actually say what you think we should do in any capacity. It doesn't really say anything at all.

> Reality is non-deterministic (not actually, but in practice).

At a quantum level, it is also actually non-deterministic.

That's a common misconception.

Care to elaborate?

The probabilities in quantum mechanics don't mean there is no determinism. The "answer" to determinism is dependent on your interpretation of quantum mechanics. Even then, take the popular many worlds interpretation. Some see it as supporting determinism and some see it as not supporting it. I wish I could find the pbs spacetime video that talks about it much more eloquently than I can. Somewhat tangential but if you're interested take a look at the relational interpretation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_quantum_mechanics . It doesn't get discussed much and it made me think differently about the topic.

Any interpretation that asserts a deterministic universe must invent a "hidden" mechanism which causes the apparent non-determinism, and which we cannot measure nor predict.

By Occam's razor, it is more probable that the universe is simply non-deterministic.

The flaw is the assertion that the probabilities make non-determinism apparent.

By themselves, they don't. But quantum probabilities are unique. They cannot be explained by missing information about local, pre-existing properties. Therefore, to maintain determinism, you are forced to accept extreme alternatives like non-locality (actions here instantly affecting the other side of the universe) or the existence of infinite splitting universes. If we reject those unobservable overheads, non-determinism is the most direct conclusion.

I'm not a fan of hidden variable theories. Every interpretation asks you to accept something weird. I like the relational interpretation because its weirdness is the least unpalatable to me (no hidden variables, no non-locality, no unobservable "other worlds"). To me the relational interpretation gives an explanation for how certain information can only be predicted with probabilities without requiring some fundamental randomness. The simplified example is that when you measure the spin of an electron the value of the spin only makes sense relative to the thing that measured it. It's essentially just extending to quantum mechanics the idea that the velocity of a thing means nothing without another thing its velocity is relative to.

>What if our lives get much, much better? Roughly everyone wants more out of life including the top one percent (and I don't mean the top 0.0001%, just your ordinary industrial nation doctors). How could we possibly morally justify denying everyone the best shot to get at least to that level, and I mean living people RIGHT NOW, ASAP not in a few hundred years?

This is satire, right?

If you seriously think that AI is going to improve the lives of anyone except the robber barons who own the AI you are absolutely delusional.