d-lisp

I hated these sentences way before LLMs, at least in the context of an explanation.

> it's not just a website you go like Google, it's a little spirit/ghost that "lives" on your computer

This type of sentence, I call rhetorical fat. Get rid of this fat and you obtain a boring sentence that repeats what has been said in the previous one.

Not all rhetorical fats are equal, and I must admit I find myself eyerolling on the "little spirit" part more than about the fatness.

I understand the author wants to decorate things and emphasize key elements, and the hate I feel is only caused by the incompatible projection of my ideals to a text that doesn't belong to me.

> it's not just about the image generation itself, it's about the joint capability coming from text generation.

That's unjustified conceptual stress.

That could be a legitimate answer to a question ("No, no, it's not just about that, it's more about this"), but it's a text. Maybe the text wants you to be focused, maybe the text wants to hype you; this is the shape of the hype without the hype.

"I find image generation is cooler when paired with text generation."

I wish I was doing your job. How do I do so ?

I don't know if code is literacy but I think measuring code quality is somehow like measuring the quality of a novel.

Je répète, car le message semble ne pas être passé:

Je trouve que "la déférence" est un mécanisme social dépassé, or cela n'a pas grand rapport avec la notion de respect, si ce n'est que c'est un témoignage forcé et niais de cette dernière. Je trouve l'honnêteté plus respectueuse que sa mise en scène, et je préfèrerai l'absence de déférence car cela signifie que je suis en présence d'un semblable qui m'est égal, qui m'invite à la rencontre plutôt qu'à ce rapport perclus de domination et de soumission.

Vous n'êtes pas transparent, jamais tant que vous n'expliquez pas vos propos plus en détail, c'est tout ce que je pourrais vous dire.

Pourquoi ?

Je pense qu'il faut que vous soyez un peu plus explicite sur le fond de votre pensée parce que je trouve au contraire que ça peut être un archaïsme social tout à fait paralysant.

Je ne conçois non plus comment me parler en français devrait m'amadouer. Je ne me sens ni respecté ni bafoué par avance, quelque soit la langue dans laquelle on s'adresse à moi.

Qu'un touriste soit stupide, balourd ou suffisant, sa capacité à parler français ne lui sera d'aucun secours s'il souhaite échapper au jugement que je lui imprime.

Vous savez, j'essaie principalement de comprendre qu'est ce qui peut faire exister le cliché sus-mentionné "les français font exprès de ne pas parler votre langue". Quand je lis "Vous devriez parler français, nous apprécions cela comme une marque de respect" j'ai honte !

Did you try notcurses ? [0]

[0] https://notcurses.com/

Je ne conçois même pas en quoi cela serait une marque d'irrespect que de ne pas le faire ?

Quand je peux aider quelqu'un qui échoue péniblement à trouver des interlocuteurs et qui ne parle pas français, je suis ravi de le faire et je ne m'en sens pas insulté par ailleurs.

But how did you know they "clearly understand english" ?

I am trying to understand the situation you were in, because I read that a lot and I cannot imagine why such rudeness.

That's totally a cliche. Everywhere in the world you can meet people that : 1. Only speak their native language. 2. Speak several languages but not yours. 3. Speak your language but are assholes. 4. Speak your language but are afraid of talking because they are afraid of sounding ridiculous. 5. Are very happy to speak your language. 6. Hate your country for absurd reasons. 7. Love your country for absurd reasons.

Nowadays young frenchs learn english by overexposition to the language through various medias (school is of no help) and in the past, even if english was taught at school, I think the majority of them didn't learn it properly beyond "my taylor is rich", "The cat is happy" and "I love you".

I didn't "learn" english and it is a mystery why I can express myself and understand others in this language, I guess I have been overexposed to the language when I was young.

That said, I worked in museums at a time in my life and was actually surprised by the huge amount of people travelling in the world with no knowledge of the language of the country they are in, expecting everybody to be able to talk their language like if it was universal, be them italians, frenchs, americans, chinese or whatever.

> Your imagination falters here too.

I think I just don't find what you described as interesting as you find. I tried AI dungeoning also, but I find it less interesting than with people, because I think I like people more than specific mechanisms of sociality. Also, in a sense, my brain is capable of producing suprising things and when I am writing a story as a hobby, I don't know what will actually happen to the characters and what the resolution would be, and it's very very exciting !

> no one is an expert or even decently knowledgeable in more than 0-2 areas

I might be biased and I don't want to show off, but there are some of these people around here, let's say it's rare that people are decently knowledgeable in more than 5 areas.

I am okay with what you said :

- AI is a better google

But also google became shit, and as far as I can remember, it was somewhat of an incredible tool before. If AI became what is the old google for those people, then wouldn't you say, if you were them, that it's not very impressive and somewhat "like google".

edit; all judgements I made about "not interesting" do not mean "not impressive"

edit2: I think eventually AI will be capable of writing a book akin to Egan's Diaspora, and I would love to reflect on what I said at this time

At least there are 3d models of the dispositive and some pictures !

Yes, that's a problem of me not being a native english speaker. "All x aren't y" may mean "not all x are y" in my tongue. Not a single x is y is more what we would say in the previous case. But in our case we would say there are x that aren't y.

If thinking is definable, it is wrong that all statements about it are unverifiable (i.e. there are statements about it that are verifiable.)

Well, basic shit.

I think they meant "Cannot evaluate : (is <undefined> like x ?), argument missing"

edit : Thinking is undefined, statements about undefined cannot be verified.

Do you think that thinking is undefinable ? If thinking is definable, then all statements about it aren't unverifiable.

That's more interesting, how much were you involved personally in writing the code ? I would love to read about the process !

I wanted to reflect a bit on this.

I have hard time to imagine why non-tech people would find a use for LLMs, let's say nothing in your life forces you to produce information (be it textual, pictural or anything that can be related to information). Let's say your needs are focused on spending good times with friends or your family, eating nice dishes (home cooked or restaurant), spending your money on furnitures, rents, clothes, tools and etc.

Why would you need an AI that produce information in an information-bloated world ?

You probably met someone that "fell in love with woodworking" or idk, after having watched youtube videos (that person probably built a chair, a table or something akin). I don't think stuff like "Hi, I have these materials, what can I do with it" produce more interesting results than just nerding on the internet or in a library looking for references (on japaneese handcrafted furnitures, vintage ikea designs, old school woodworking, ...). (Or maybe the LLM will be able to give you a list of good reads, which is nice but somewhat of a limited and basic use).

Agentic AI and more efficient/intelligent AIs are not very interesting for people like <wood lover> and are at best a proxy for otherly findable information. Of course, not everyone is like <wood lover>, the majority of people don't even need to invest time in a "creative" hobby and instead they will watch movies, invest time in sport, invest time in sociability, go to museums, read books; you could imagine having AIs that write books, invent films, invent artworks, talk with you, but I am pretty sure that there is something more than just "watch a movie" or "read a book" when performing these activities; as someone who likes reading or watching movies, what I enjoy is following the evolutions of the authors of the pieces, understanding their posture toward its ancestors, its era-mates, toward its own previous visions and whatnot. I enjoy to find a movie "weird" "goofy" "sublime" and whatnot, because I enjoy a small amount of parasociality with the authors and am finally brought to say things like "Ahah, Lynch was such a weirdo when he shot Blue Velvet" (okay, maybe not that type of bully judgement, but you may be understanding what I mean).

I think I would find it uninspiring to read an AI written book, because I couldn't live this small parasocial experience. Maybe you could get me with music, but I still think there's a lot of activity in loving a song. I love Bach, but am pretty sure also I like Bach the character (from what I speculate from the songs I listen). I imagine that guy in front of his keyboard, having the chance to live a -weird- moment of extasy when he produces the best lines of the chaconne (if he was living in our times he would relisten to what he produced again and again and nodding to himself "man, that's sick").

What could I experience from an LLM ? "Here is the perfect novel I wrote specifically for you based on your tastes:". There would be no imaginary Bach that I would like to drink a beer with, no testimony of a human reaching the state of mind in which you produce an absolute (in fact highly relative, but you need to lie to yourself) "hit".

All of this is highly personnal, but I would be curious to know what others think.

You inspired me this joyful rewrite:

    #define _(e) { e;};
    #define r(e) _(return e)
    #define I(b, e) _(if (b) r(e));
    #define W(e) _(while (1) _(e));
    int main(int c, char **v) {
      _(I(c != 2, -1) _(c = 0) W(I(!v[1][c++], v[1][c - 2] & 1)))
    }

People older than 25 or 30 maybe.

It would be funny that in the end, the most use is made by student cheating at uni.

if(n&1)

else

Most non tech people I talked with don't care at all about LLMs.

They also are not impressed at all ("Okay, that's like google and internet").

I remember about a problem I had while quick testing notcurses. I tried chatGPT which produced a lot of weird but kinda believable statements about the fact that I had to include wchar and define a specific preprocessor macro, AND I had to place the includes for notcurses, other includes and macros in a specific order.

My sentiment was "that's obviously a weird non-intended hack" but I wanted to test quickly, and well ... it worked. Later, reading the man-pages I aknowledged the fact that I needed to declare specific flags for gcc in place of the gpt advised solution.

I think these kind of value based judgements are hard to emulate for LLMs, it's hard for them to identifiate a single source as the most authoritative source in a sea of lesser authoritative (but numerous) sources.

I see a lot of "vibe-coding" related articles, but I don't see a lot of shipped projects/products via "vibe-coding". I would like to find some examples instead of this kind of articles ?

Do you have a link to the webapp you produced or its source code ?

edit: it was a real request, I was being interested, not some mockery or idk

"Linux Kernel for the self-conscious lifeforms" would definitely fit on my shelves .

You are the object the camera is bound to, which is elligible for collection when it become unreachable, allowing at some point in time for new allocations to be made with the amount of space you occupied during your life.

Do note that if nothing is done with this space -ever- then your data is not zeroed out, yet you don't exist anymore ?

What is your point exactly in regard to what I said earlier, how would you rephrase what you just said as a philosophical/epistemological statement ?

> It's extremely common

I cannot conceive this ? I am lacking the empirical knowledge you seem to have. (I don't understand your "archetypical case", I can't relate to it). I'd love a reexplanation of your point here, as your intent is unclear to me.

I didn't understand also the "introspection modulators" part :(, (a well known practice ?? I must be living on another planet haha...).

edit: or maybe that's a metaphor for "language" ??

(Motors and human brains are both just mechanisms, the reason one is a priori capable of learning abstract thought and not the other ?)

While I agree to some extent with the materialistic conception, the brain is not an isolated mechanism, but rather the element of a system which itself isn't isolated from the experience of being a body in a world interacting with different systems to form super systems.

The brain must be a very efficient mechanism, because it doesn't need to ingest the whole textual production of the human world in order to know how to write masterpieces (music, litterature, films, software, theorems etc...). Instead the brain learns to be this very efficient mechanism with (as a starting process) feeling its own body sh*t on itself during a long part of its childhood.

I can teach someone to become really good at producing fine and efficient software, but on the contrary I can only observe everyday that my LLM of choice keeps being stupid even when I explain it how it fails. ("You're perfectly right !").

It is true that there's nothing magical about the brain, but I am pretty sure it must be stronger tech than a probabilistic/statistical next word guesser (otherwise there would be much more consensus about the usability of LLMs I think).

I doubt words are involved when we e.g. solve a mathematical problem.

To me, solving problems happens in a logico/aesthetical space which may be the same as when you are intellectually affected by a work of art. I don't remember myself being able to translate directly into words what I feel for a great movie or piece of music, even if in the late I can translate this "complex mental entity" into words, exactly like I can tell to someone how we need to change the architecture of a program in order to solve something after having looked up and right for a few seconds.

It seems to me that we have an inner system that is much faster than language, that creates entities that can then beslowly and sometimes painfully translated to language.

I do note that I'm not sure about any of the previous statements though'

Wow, but how did they deal with anomalies ?

I mean, even when I have the codebase readily accessible and testable in front of my eyes, I never trust the tests to be enough ? I often spot forgotten edge cases and bugs of various sort in C/embedded projects BECAUSE I run the program, can debug and spot mem issues and whole a lot of other things for which you NEED to gather the most informations you can in order to find solutions ?