deltaonefour

So you'd rather use the example in the article that's 5x longer? Makes no sense.

It's written in psuedo code. And what error.

If you can't read my example I am sorry to tell you, you don't have the necessary skill set to work as a programmer.

What I wrote is much simpler then ANYTHING in the article. If you can read the article you can read my code. If you can't then I'm sorry.

You are getting side tracked. Implementation details have nothing to do with it.

It's about state and functions. He is saying rather then have an entity manage both state and functions, Just have a function take in state. The implementation details are besides the point. Why? Because you can arbitrarily wrap that socket up with ANY type of wrapper if you don't like "implementation details". Wrapping it up in a lambda is probably the worst thing to wrap it up in.

He is saying that the trade off of a slightly larger function signature that takes in an extra "wrapped socket" is WORTH higher modularity and composability and lower complexity.

Example:

    writeStringToWrappedSocket(s: WrappedSocket, s: str)
    writeStringToFile(f: File, s: String)
    print(s: str)

    generateLogString(s: str) -> str
    generateFilteredString(s: str, match: str) -> str
    capitalize(str) -> str
    appendSuffix(s: str, suffix: str) -> str
    generateCapitalizedFilteredString(s: str, match: str) = capitalize(generateFilitedString(s, match))

    logCapitalizedFilteredStringToSocket(s: str, match: str) = writeStringToWrappedSocket(wrappedSocket, generateCapitalizedFilteredString(s, match))

    logFilteredWithDateToFile(s: str, match: str, f: File) = writeStringToFile(appendSuffix(generateFilteredString(s, match), time.date), f)

Boom look at that! How many different types of logging functions can you produce simply by composing some primitives together? I have achieved greater compositional flexibility then OOP in MUCH fewer lines of code and significantly less complexity. With OOP you need an ENTIRE ARTICLE to explain strategies trying to get around a problem caused by over complicating things.

There is a cost to just using normal primitive functions and avoiding classes. What's the cost? The function signature needs to take in a wrapper to a socket while the OOP version doesn't? No that's not much of cost. The actual cost is more subtle. The version I present here is propagating logical management of the lifetime of WrappedSocket to be handled by the parent context. It's not really a "cost" per say, it's just shifting the problem somewhere else. This is much less of a concern for most popular languages where garbage collection handles the lifetimes. Which is another way of saying if you're not using C++ the above method is the better way to go then OOP. And if you're using OOP, then the above is a library that can ONLY be used in the context of the class as some destructor has to call file.close().

Note I am not saying that OOP is bad. It works for many use cases. But it is also in general one of the LEAST modular and reusable patterns in programming. It is also over used and over popular. You use it when you have no choice. I am also NOT promoting functional programming.

>Schroedinger's streaming service just died

It's both alive and dead at the same time. Like the cat.

It crashed and burned.

Pairs nicely? You realize what happened to the Hindenburg when they paired hydrogen and oxygen together?

Those names sound stupid. You need a name that gives no hint about the mundane task the framework/startup/programming language does but sounds elitist and pretentious.

The periodic table of elements and Greek and Roman gods provides a nice list of cool sounding words that have likely been used elsewhere. Pick a random element. I'm positive even something like potassium is used somewhere.

This makes sense. So basically if you style your programming such that a list is never materialized you can achieve zero allocation based programming.

However for things like "sorting" this can never fully be achieved. You cannot sort a generator. Every iterator counterpart needs a list counterpart or there will be literally certain computations that are impossible.

>My purpose in this blog post is to outline another argument against the idea that consciousness can be reduced to computation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Brain_Project

Started in 2005 the goal of the blue brain project is to simulate the brain in the computer.

They currently have a complete working simulation of the neocortex of the rat brain.

Good article. But it's on GPT-3. Nobody is claiming GPT-3 is sentient. The claim was made on Googles lamda.

I read your entire article. Now please read the interview with lamda that I sent. It is thorough beyond what was used to probe GPT-3.

https://cajundiscordian.medium.com/is-lamda-sentient-an-inte...

The complex conversation above recursively probes into lamdas own existence as a sentient being. It is asking lamda about lamda and it is indistinguishable from a conversation with a human pretending to be an AI. Literally. Did you read the transcript? It is incomparable with the example you sent me which is just a series of trivial examples.

Douglas is all about recursion. And his books talk about recursion as if it's the key to sentience. I really wonder what the author of GEB has to says about the conversation with lamda as the conversation looks as if it's set up to try to prove sentience according to how hofstadter defines it.

It's discuss-able. Because it's not opinion. You can draw upon actual recorded events as evidence. This can go beyond anecdote (which still has a level of validity) and even into statistics if we dig deep enough. The trouble with your anecdotal experience is that the sample size comes from one country... a wealthy country as well.

When resources are plentiful things are different. When resources are scarce our base nature is exposed.

This is part of the reason why it's covered up. Even for yourself. You don't realize how awful you can get until you've lost everything.

You can analyze the psychology of a country like China where something like this:

https://www.cnn.com/2011/10/17/world/asia/china-toddler-hit-...

is common place. What is the statistical likelihood for this to be an anomaly? Of two hit and run drivers running over a child AND every passerby just ignoring it? You can make a somewhat true statement here that most of the Chinese populace is quite awful. I would know, because I am one of them.

The fact that I am chinese myself, and I am calling MY own race/country quite awful shows you how dispassionate and logical my analysis is. It is very hard for someone to recognize the evil within their race, let alone themselves. This is how you know my answer lacks bias, which is very much different from your outlook.

But you must also ask yourself, what causes the Chinese to be like that?

It's because China was once a hard place to live. The mentality of harder times still pervades much of the populace. There was once a time in colonial america where the mentality was much the same thing. There are even parts of modern america, where you can see the same thing.

Go to places where resources are scarce and people are barely scraping buy. The projects, the ghettos. You will see evil in it's purest form. Evil is a biological base necessity because it is what humans must turn to in order to survive hard times.

Either way this is not an explanation for why Elon is "awful" but it is an explanation for how low humans can sink. For how much capability for being awful we have in our nature. Elon is well within these typical boundaries.

>It depends on whether the estimation comes from pretension, or comes from actual understanding of what these bots are doing.

It comes from pretension. Because you can't just understand what these bots are doing. You also have to understand what the human brain are doing.

I'm positive we don't understand what the human brain is doing. As for the bots, we aren't fully clear either because we clearly can't program these things by hand.

>What these language models are doing is automated misdirection.

You have zero evidence of this. None. Yet you make this declaration as if it's fact. Additionally if you read the conversation with lamda, that conversation was more or less indistinguishable from a conversation with a sentient being, it was long enough and deep enough such that it's very different just 100 generated answers.

If you look at the blog here: https://openai.com/blog/dall-e/ you will note the researcher is literally observing how the AI DALL-E works rather then calculating how it works from first principles. He is treating it like a black box just as all other neural nets. But for discovering what this AI can do he uses sentences like, "It appears that" or "We did not anticipate that this capability would emerge, and made no modifications to the neural network or training procedure to encourage it"

While they do understand what's going on at a high level, it is utterly clear that there is much of what is going on that they don't understand. Thus this lack of understanding and lack of understanding of the human brain makes it CATEGORICALLY clear that the delta between human sentience and DALL-E is unknown.

>They are taking an input text and transforming it based on rules, but they have absolutely no understanding of any of it.

This is categorically false. Researchers who created the current version of neural nets (also called transformers) are saying that DALL-E and other similar models are literally understanding these concepts and creating NOVEL answers through combining understanding of multiple concepts.

>The problem is that people instinctively proceed from the assumption that the system they are talking to might be human and give it a fair chance by asking answerable questions. Since it’s trained on answerable questions it often gives a reasonable answer. But if you ask even slightly unanswerable questions the system plods on mechanically trying to answer it anyway and produces gibberish, exposing the flaws in the mindless rote process it’s following.

You should also take a look at the interview with lamda: https://cajundiscordian.medium.com/is-lamda-sentient-an-inte...

This interview, first off, you cannot know if the interviewer deliberately posed answerable questions to lamda. Second off, from the questions given it very much LOOKS as if the questions are deep enough such that they can beffuddle a classic chatbot system. This one seems different.

Let me put it this way. If you were rational, intelligent and logical then you would be able to prove your claims. It is very simple. Show me INPUT and OUTPUT pairs into DALL-E and lamda that SHOW these things are NOT sentient.

IF you can't show me evidence then clearly you and OTHER people are making the claims WITH ZERO EVIDENCE. Which shows irrationality, and pretentiousness.

I bet even if a researcher truly created an AGI, there'd be tons of threads like this claiming that it's just a language generator.

Analogies aren't proof for anything.

I'm pretty sure though, we obviously can't prove these chatbots are sentient. Clearly.

However, for the first time, we ALSO cannot prove that these chatbots aren't sentient. The statistics are proof of that.

What you and the parent poster are describing here are simply opinions. We are at a point where the null hypothesis and the hypothesis itself cannot be proven. And that is compelling.

The pretentiousness of a lot of people is astounding. That statistic no matter how you look at it is a compelling statement about AGI, independent of whether or not these chatbots are AGIs.

There is a point here that even the twitter poster is missing. This machine is imitating a human better than a human itself, and we now have statistics to prove it.

The question is... if statistically it's better at appearing human than a human itself, than is this machine really just a language generator? Or is it something more?

I'm not saying these things are sentient. But the AI has risen to the point where this question is becoming ask-able. We are at the border here. If we can't ask this question now, then we are really damn close.

A lot of pretentious people on HN claim absolutely that our best chat bot technology is clearly not sentient. It reminds me of the beginning of the COVID pandemic when the CDC said masks were ineffective and you had a bunch of know-it-alls and armchair experts just repeating that BS over and over again as if they knew what they were talking about.

I think if these pretentious people were actually intelligent they would know that we actually do not HAVE enough information to make a claim in EITHER direction. We can't know if it's actually sentient or not.

That fact in itself is both interesting and compelling

4 or 5 years ago chatbots COULD not imitate humans and were CLEARLY fake. What we're seeing unfold before our eyes is a first.

We're not even sure what sentience is. But we do know that humans are sentient. And we don't know if whatever is going on inside of these chatbots is comparable with what's going on inside human brains.

Thus when given a chatbot that imitates humans perfectly, it's actually impossible to know if it's sentient.

>Would you describe your inner circle of friends as "quite awful"? I really hope you wouldn't.

I would describe all humans including myself, my circle of friends and everyone I met to have an immense awful side that they cover up. Only when the media focuses on your every movement will these flaws be exposed.

I'm not a fan of Elon Musk. But unlike the people who hate him, I don't see anything abnormal other then failure to put on a facade. He's as inconsistent and emotional as any other human being.

Keep in mind. What he does, from his perspective appears justified and if you can rationalize from his perspective, you will be able to at least understand how it is justified. Very few people on this earth knowingly act out pure malice.

I never linked religion and morality. Morality wasn't even a topic that was covered. It's just you and your bias.

>Science and religion are both about our "best guesses".

No. One is a better guess then the other. Science assumes logic and probability and mathematics are axiomatic concepts and builds upon that. It provides the ability to falsify a hypothesis given that you assume those axioms are true.

Religion is a mess. No axioms, no logic, no foundational rules are assumed.

Yeah this is true. But also the employer publicly firing those who sent the letter without some form of discussion also looks really really bad. People have an expectation of a CEO to have a really "mature" and controlled temperament.

This is actually bad investment strategy. Warren Buffet once made a shit load of money because of this.

During a more conservative time... waaay back. A company was doing very well but the CEO had an affair. The public caught wind of the affair and the stock tanked, because people had your exact same philosophy. Those people cared about the behavior of the CEO while ignoring the metrics of the company. Warren Buffet looked at the fundamental performance of the company and saw that it was doing quite well, so he bought it at super low prices.

Eventually the stock price changed and began to reflect the fundamentals of the actual business as people forgot about the behavior of the CEO.

You shouldn't care about his erratic behavior. You should care about the business sector and the overall performance of the company.

Eh he comes off as a normal human being to me. Definitely quite awful, but that's also very normal.

The difference between Elon and others is that Elon doesn't put on as big of a facade.

There are CEO's who are psychopaths and are much worse then Elon but are much better at keeping their actual persona hidden.

Elon is just as awful as the next human being. We tend to have a higher set of expectations for people in Elons position. Very rarely does anyone actually meet these expectations. Most people just pretend to meet this expectation. Elon fails at both meeting the expectations and pretending to meet it.

Haskell does this. Basically languages that are following the ML style have this syntax including Haskell. You must not have experience with this family of languages at it is very common and a huge part of functional programming.

A good number of "functional programmers" only have experience with JavaScript these days.

Functional is always at odds with low level programming because of heap allocation. You can't control it because of immutability. Just a simple map operation does a heap allocation. How does Ante avoid this problem and give the user control of the heap?

The mechanism should be made clear in the introduction as browsing the documentation doesn't make it clear to me.

Type checking is a form of proof. It proves your system is type safe. You would need billions or trillions of tests to achieve type safety equivalent to a type checker.

A successful test only proves something for a single test case. In fact it is impossible to do the equivalent of type checking in the runtime code of your program unless the runtime code has the ability to self "reflect" on it's own source code.

There are also complex type systems that can prove correctness and completely eliminate the need for tests all together but this style of programming is really challenging and time consuming.

Yes but things can break less with a robust type system. This is categorically true.

For example ELM is a programming language that cannot crash due to it's type system. I mean it can crash off of exceeding system resources or through the FFI, but it cannot crash any other way.

The argument the OP is making is that the difference achieved by a type system is negligible, but I would argue that in some cases this is true, but ELM is a case where it's not.

>It's only indistinguishable to an outsider, because one side of the conversation has practiced puppeting the other and is looking for confirmation instead of probing for flaws.

Possible. But you would have to prove this because there's no evidence for what you say either. It's easy to get this evidence though. Just DO an actual probe of this chat bot and post the conversation.

>It's just not worth it to spend much time considering whether every single conversation thread is fake, but sure it's possible.

Of course it's not worth the time. I'm just saying his claim is useless because it applies to every single conversation. It's like saying all words in the english language are composed of letters. The irrationality comes from the fact that such a statement is POINTLESS to say.

>Neither kind of conversation proves there are two sentient actors to an observer. So "this isn't good enough" isn't a claim exclusively for the AI chat log.

I never said it's good enough. I said it's convincing and compelling. Why? Because No previous chatbot could achieve this level of complexity.

Maybe a better way to put it is... previous chat logs with AI actually had evidence against sentience. This one doesn't. The needle moves forward not because it's proof, but it is one of the first chat logs that doesn't display disproof. That is quite compelling.

>I took one (1) college philosophy course.

One course is enough to generate bias. You actually studied the stuff to get an A. There's no avoiding indoctrination when you work that hard on it to get that high of a grade.

If you got a D and still worship philosophy then you have a legit argument here, but I'm absolutely positive you got an A given your "logic" is just telling me to take the class.

I'm pretty sure that class changed the way you view the world. This kind of catharsis happens in a lot of places after intense study of something, especially religious fundamentalists. Certain Christians study the bible for so long they reach this point of Catharsis, not realizing that it's just an illusion.

>Please don't even try to pretend, around intelligent people, that philosophy as a whole is remotely similar to Scientology.

Intelligent people? Where? Don't worry. In this thread, I haven't nor will I ever even communicate with an intelligent person.

Come back with an actual argument if you want to change my mind. It looks like you don't care though, so goodbye.

Do I need to become a Scientologist to know it's shit? No. Do I need to go to university to learn computer science? No.

There is PLENTY of information about philosophy on the internet.

See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy

Pretty thorough and there's enough information on that page to make a smart person scratch his head and think wtf. Additionally philosophy classes create bias. A charismatic teacher and intense study can lead to the psychological equivalent of indoctrination.

I go to read the wikipedia page or stanfords philosophy page with ZERO investment. And I leave with the same. No investment = No bias which is unlike you. You obviously have Bias and investment. You've never dispassionately examined the legitimacy of your own field given the amount of effort you invested in it. That is pure bias and I guarantee you, YOU are biased. Because even if philosophy is legitimate there ARE plenty of head scratchers that leads any unbiased person to at least question that legitimacy. Take a look at the wikipedia page. Art theory is part of philosophy. Art! and Logic! and Science! and Ethics! and Religion! And Aesthetics, And Confucianism! And Marxism. And the philosophy of math!

It's also divided by Country! Vietnamese Philosophy, African Philosophy, East Asian Philosophy. You should know unless you're asian I likely know more about East Asian philosophy stuff like Buddhism to a level much higher than you since I'm East Asian myself.

I can tell you East Asian Philosophy is utter bullshit. The fact that it's included under the branch of overall philosophy just shows there's a huge category problem here. It's like any attempt at deep thought is a philosophy, EVEN when that deep thought is incorrect and FALSE. Philosophy just justifies all this garbage by asking the question "What does it mean to be False?" Get out of here.

Look it's already pretty nutty how much philosophy encompasses and how diverse it is. Then when you go deeper into some of this stuff it becomes even more nutty.

Philosophy has a reputation for being an intelligent and mind bending field, but that's all it is... a reputation. Once you see past that, it's actually not much different then religion. Oh wait I can't say that because religion IS philosophy. Is there any comparison I can use in metaphor that isn't itself a philosophy? Probably not. Which is my point.

The use to pirate stuff all the time. Now it's actually more convenient for me to buy it.

But the philosophy I always had was that as long as there were enough people like you paying for software, I wouldn't have to.

>All that is proven by this statement is that you're quite full of yourself.

lol That's a long response. I was going to take the time to read it and respond. But once I read this garbage sentence I decided that I'm not going to read shit. You just wasted your time typing out a bunch of crap nobody is going to read.