ModernMech

I think that movie is Robocop.

These days I only use AI once a week the way Astra chews through usage. “Congrats your usage has reset you can get back to… aaaaand it’s gone”

> they are more like laws of nature.

That's the ideology.

> If it’s not worth writing, it’s not worth reading.

I mean, you didn't write that, you're just repeating a meme for the 1 millionth time. People have always been saying things they didn't write, and AI is just one new way.

yes that's the failure mode if one of your first principles is not to continuously reevaluate your first principles.

Nice, that's a good dimension.

Needs more dimensions for net worth and social media audience size.

They're not so much at odds, but the emphasis is very different and therefore the failure modes are. First principles thinking emphasizes the principles, and so that's why there's an ideological trap; all you need to justify a given direction is some rationale from first principles, and that's often good enough.

The problem is... which first principles? Say your goal is to get to the moon, and the principle you use is to minimize the distance, and you choose to do this in a greedy fashion. This will have you climbing ladders, trees, buildings, and mountains, and you will record that as progress justifying the approach. But you haven't reasoned far back enough to figure out just greedily minimizing your distance to the moon is never going to get you there, no matter what. Choosing the wrong principles can lead to local extremes which can be a lot harder to see in cases less obvious than going to the moon.

Reasoning backwards has its own traps as well.

>But I usually find it useful to have both.

Yes that's the trick. And much more. If you have any sort of content, you should express it as a slideshow, a white paper, a blog post, a video, a podcast, etc. Get it out in as many forms as you can. Maybe even performative dance or song if you've got that energy.

Pretty much all electric toothbrushes have a mode that tell you how long to brush in an area, you're describing a gimmick to justify $150.

One of the most telling quotes of our political era is this one from 2019:

  “I voted for him, and he's the one who's doing this. I thought he was going to do good things. He's not hurting the people he needs to be hurting.”

They voted for him to do “good things” where the expectation was he’d hurt the right people. This person stated it a little more plainly than most but I think this view explains the last 10 years or so.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/8/18173678/tr...

You think smart fridges are bad, my wife bought this $300 "smart toothbrush" that I'm just like... facepalm. All it does is connect to an app and reminds you to brush your teeth or something. It's so dumb I'm just waiting for it to break.

Maybe the impacts but Gen Z at least the younger ones really struggle with technology. Things like file systems (even the gui kind) and the keys in a keyboard - had one ask me what’s a semicolon, he was a fully formed adult. They are not digital natives they were raised from behind the walls of the iGarden.

No you’re thinking of an app made with it https://volt-app.com/

Malice isn't required to destroy the first amendment, city councils arresting people speaking out, in the name of getting business done is enough. I think the "I disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it" view of free speech is very much a minority view. Most people, especially mayors and city councils, ascribe to the "free speech for me and not for thee" view.

> We don't live in an free speech absolutist society

I'm not sure what kind of society we live in. Is there even a social contract anymore? Is the Constitution even in effect? I'm not sure exactly what the rules are anymore, we live in a society where a mob violently attacked the US capitol, and got pardons for their trouble. So, why bother talking about anything, when violence is rewarded but speech gets you a record? What's even the point of the first amendment, it's meaningless when they can just write an executive order deeming their political opponents (or anyone) part of a vast but nebulous terrorist network, who obviously don't have a first amendment right. Because terrorists.

Okay but why should one expect a marketing site, which this is, to have quality prose instead of typical marketing prose, which it does.

I can see that, but that's also exactly the mechanism by which buraucracies attack the first amendment, so people who just reasonably disagree should explain how their disagreement doesn't serve the very agenda they say they're against.

Ah I see you are well versed in bureaucratic attack strategies on the first amendment! “We’re not violating your rights, there’s a special first amendment zone you can say all that where we can’t hear!”

To me, this is not worse than any Apple marketing page from the last 15 years written by human marketing people.

This is what's so amusing to me. People say they're not interested in the output of an LLM, only what a human has to say. But then when a human says "These words from the LLM are good, I vouch for them" the very same people say "If I wanted those words, I'd get them from the LLM myself, what's the point of this human at all?"

> If I know some text was written by LLM I'd much rather know the prompt - the seed of intent.

Here's the proximal prompt "Okay, take everything we've been talking about for 2 hours and apply those edits to the the final draft for publication."

What exactly does that give you?

They are not planning on winning any more elections from here on out, I don't know what other people saw on J6 to make them think that's not the strategy from now on, whenever they lose an election.

MCP always seemed like something that wouldn't be necessary if AI lived up to the hype.

Okay but I’ve spent 8 years implementing bad code so far. I’ve got a lot of understanding but only half the code is done. Down the line I’ll be dead. Why not implement it now with AI?

Moreover is writing code the only way to understand it?

What is a soul, how do you measure and quantify it? If you can’t, how would you know whether the grammar mistakes change the soul? I’ve heard people say they keep the grammar mistakes in to prove the existence of a soul, so presumably correcting them would alter the soul in some measurable way.

> each LLM was tested 600 times, and in total over 10,000 questions and answers were assessed.

Okay but why do you feel 3 trials say as much as 10,000?

Grim Fandango is interesting because they are responsible for Lua’s popularity as a gaming scripting language:

https://www.lua.org/doc/hopl.pdf

Usually credit goes to the people wielding the tools, not the tools themselves.

So was Lean. Did Lean solve it?

The V pitch was a bunch of features that seemed implausible like automatic C++ translation and near-GC ergonomics with near-manual-memory behavior, without Rust-style explicit lifetime annotations or pervasive reference counting. so basically the pitch was the holy grail of systems, which caused drama as the project was met with extreme skepticism.

That was 7 years ago and since then the project has not delivered the grail, instead settling to be more of a mashup between go and C.

Bend is completely different it was just announced last week. It doesn’t have any users and has a weird ai integration so I done see how it’s relevant as a contender in the systems space at all.