DiscourseFan

This is quite a well-rounded list for one that seems to understand some its subjects relatively poorly

Yeah but you can just look that stuff up

No its not quite right still, I think for the US it still makes the most sense to have the start of the summer be the longest day, because basically the earth has been heating up to that point and that’s when the energy input begins to wane. Think about it like a steak: when you take it off the grill, its still heating up a bit before it starts to cool down.

Yes fortunately it is really bad at actually making novel bioweapons or syntheses in general so whatever you made probably wouldn't do more than give someone a mild headache.

Isn't this the Chinese system? Using state corporations to spur competition.

I've always eaten a ton of fiber, to the point where if I stop I get constipated, and I've always put on muscle fairly easily.

Yeah I do find it easier and less tiresome to read on my phone.

I agree but in countries with larger populations, there are two reasons:

1) Women can have children, and after a major war a large section of the population may be killed, and its better to have more women than men, since you can repopulate faster.

2) Women take over a large share of industrial labor during wartime. This was a mistake the Germans made in WW2, because they were so mystified by Nazism. But in the US, women basically took over all the manufacturing jobs that men left when they went to war, and it helped shore up the industrial base and, in the end, helped lead to an allied victory.

In a place like Israel, there are so few people that it doesn't make a massive difference. If half the men get taken out, its not like the 2-3 million remaining women are going to be able or even want to "repopulate" so rapidly (not to mention that Israel has an interesting setup where a small section of the women make up the majority of the births--the ultra-orthodox--and the majority probably aren't having kids anyway).

Obviously the oil spike, while not a relatively massive price hike historically, is clearly accelerating the pace of electrification, similarly to how COVID accelerated the use of zoom and other remote work platforms. But also similarly, it will probably be the case that gas is still used for some needs, just not nearly as many as today. People still do prefer their gas ranges, and its not as if natural gas is a great pollutant. But electricity is easier to manage than ever now, given battery capacity.

Look guys I use AI to help me re-write shit but for HN comments?

(Maybe I'm just being paranoid here).

Nobody is even talking about the worst part...the worst part is, that Trump's economic policies are working, at least according to the latest jobs data. Artificially restricting the labor pool, creating massive corporate levies, forcing businesses to hire domestic labor at the same time. Growth has slowed, freedom and movement have slowed, but the "working class" (except Mexicans and other immigrants I guess) is getting what they want: exceptional job security and good wages. This is always the course of a successful fascist regime: you can't go too far, you can't go and exterminate 10% of your population, you can't completely cut off exports and imports. No; remember, for all his faults, Louis the III rebuilt Paris, he created vital infrastructure, plumbing--the streets were clean, orderly. Designed specifically to prevent uprisings, so large sections could be cordoned off; main streets sold to friends of the regime. It didn't work, of course, and it hasn't ever "worked" long term. Capitalism unleashes energies that cannot be rested by state violence. Energies that must be embraced and overcome from within themselves--the freedom that lets you start a business from nothing or creating a product out of almost thin air with just the tools at your disposal and the people you want to work with, unbound by market forces, the traditional family, any religious institutions. But it can't happen easily, and it won't be fun either. Only fascism ever gets to be "fun," and then its terrible.

Is this not very different from Carl Schmitt's idea of Decisionism[0]? (I think his is more fleshed out philosophically and has a more general character)

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decisionism

There some work on it in Fanged Noumena. The Kant essay at the beginning is definitely the most intelligible, but they are all good.

I think this blog post doesn't quite understand Andreessen's position. In fact, perhaps Andreessen doesn't understand his own position, which makes this even worse.

Freud isn't the issue; Freud did not think the unconscious was "inside," he said the unconscious is the metapsychological apparatus which is the result of primary repression (something we all experience at a young age, since we don't remember, for instance, being potty trained, but we don't go around shitting ourselves, at least not intentionally). The ego is, at the most basic level, the skin. Its inside relatively to the outside, but there isn't a hidden subject hiding within it, you can and often do affect the inside of the body through external means, and vica versa.

It was Descartes who originally came up with the idea of a separate "inner" world vs a "outer" experience, the thinking ego-cogito and what it perceives in extension in the world. This formulation has been troublesome for philosophy hence, but in fact it was Freud (and not Heidegger) who succeeded, after a long line of attempts in the 19th century, in radicalizing the ego-cogito and decimated the notion of "inner experience" in the 20th century, which became key to the developments of both psychology and philosophy (hence the ironic reference to the Vienna circle). And more than Freud, in Andreesen's case, it was Nick Land, who took Freud even further, and expanded this idea to refer to unity in general,so that the 0, even that of the computer programming, the empty unity, became its own activity in a broader economy of information and energetics, and this 0 was both that of the psyche-soma, and that of the symbolic movement in computer logic. And that is what Andreesen is trying to refer to, but he is not very well read, of course, he spends most of his time working in tech but he reads this sort of thing and talks to a lot of people who are more well read than he is.

They did it in Libya

There are many things the AI can't do.

See my comment above

Highly trusted contractors and employees of these companies. That's why they pay them the big bucks.

Def not happening, these companies pay top dollar for clean data.

“Synthesis” is the purposiveness in the force of the Concept.

I'm not sure what you mean by that

I think the first thing is just a funny little literary allusion for those in the know. I mean isn’t it kind of hilarious that a company valued at $300 billion has a drawing of an asshole for its logo?

Its good but it still has a bit of that LLM-sound to it and it really drives the point home after like 2 or 3 paragraphs and kind of keeps repeating itself over and over again. But it is still interesting, from an artistic perspective, to see a work that does the thing it is, so to speak: it is showing and doing. Of course, there is a certain art to writing: the ruthless, violent practice of editing; which, perhaps is even more important than the original text that is always, like a model output, just an unconscious stream that has not quite taken shape.

When a code doesn't compile, it doesn't kill anyone. But if a Waymo suddenly veers off the road, it creates a real threat. Waymos had to be safer than real human drivers for people to begin to trust them. Coding tools did not have to be better than humans for them to be adopted first. Its entirely possible for a human to make a catastrophic error. I imagine in the future, it will be more likely that a human makes such errors, just like its more likely that a human will make more errors driving a car.

Well there’s the other thing where people put total faith in them or believe system prompts are actual engineering challenges and not surface level changes against the more serious tasks of creating good architecture and training data, which have far more importance here. Kagi’s implementation just looks like a cheap magic trick once you look behind the curtain.

Well they are realizing they just can't compete in terms of raw productivity gains with Anthropic, their moat is in their brand and user base (and government contracts, I suppose, at least while Trump is still in office--although a few years of setting up the architecture might be enough to cement it there).

How did you get it, if you don't mind me asking. It looks legit.

I thought we all hoped there was a little more to it.

>a grammatically infinite possible sentence

This is a poor understanding of set theory and an even worse one of LLMs. Notice this output here:

>Accountability. Integrity. Synergy.

is not really grammatical either. The "grammar" is the logic internal to the reference relations of the given signs, but the "inner" of the text is always given by the supplement (the next token prediction) which is demanded by such a total coherency, but which also erases and puts it into question since such a supplement itself demands its own. What is given is the always incomplete text itself, which is always open to its own re-signification, and thus its own possibility of a new grammar, of every possible prompt.

Well yeah, because transformers used for translation try to look at each token semantically, and find an equivalent weight for each word or word phrase, atomically. If you put "ass ass ass..." into google translate to say German, it would give you the equivalent phrase "Arsch Arsch Arsch..." But, large language models are complicated autocompletes, they try to give an output to follow the structure and grammar of the writing based on its total set of significations. When you give it repetition, it has no way of analyzing the words atomically, it must view them within some sort of structure of internal referentiality. If the signs do not carry any real reference-relation ("ass ass ass"), then the model is forced to give an interpretation of something essentially empty, which lays bare the structure of its own internal coherency. Its sort of like a Rorschach test.

This is just my theory, anyway.