dullcrisp

Have we quantified the x-risk of Magnus Carlsen?

Same same.

Yes, just like that. What would it take for you to accept Our Lord into your heart?

Not confrontational, but proselytizing.

There are no goalposts. No one is trying to score points except you.

I don’t really understand this exercise of predicting what I’ll be thinking in the future.

No. Why? If you want to convince people something is true you need to actually convince them it’s true. They don’t need to justify not believing you.

You have a practical obligation to obey existing power structures. That’s what makes it a power structure. What do you all think is happening here? There have been people who decided what math gets published for centuries.

They’re not asking them to stop working on AI, but to stop publishing mathematics.

This article doesn’t present much motivation for why you would do this.

To me it reads a bit like, how we built our office without desks: it turns out if you stack two chairs on top of each other, you can balance your laptop on the top and you’ll also have a shelf on the bottom for your things.

What if it turns out that if all the AIs cooperate they can end the world really easily without finishing any taxi rides?

They’re making an oblique reference to Pope Urban VIII.

> Perhaps you might see fit to conclude your earthly endeavours at your earliest convenience?

I’m stealing this.

> I did not like it at all.

Because it left you fewer opportunities to experience the ecstasy of typing git commands into a terminal? Or because it didn't work so well?

Then you’ll probably appreciate being able to manipulate it the same way as any other change, but they could do a better job of marketing it that way.

I guess you could say it’s a skill issue.

Along with the appropriate git stash and git stash pops or git commit -anm wip and git reset HEAD^ so long as you’re not using your staging area for anything, yeah.

But if the cherry pick doesn’t cleanly apply at the current HEAD, then you have to remember to either do the git rebase -i first and pause at the appropriate place to cherry pick it if that works (I think it should? though I also recall rebase only letting you pause before a commit so you lose your commit message, but that’s probably a me problem) or else maybe detach your head and start doing surgery because otherwise you’ll be resolving conflicts in two different directions as you cherry pick and then rebase, and at that point I’m usually going back to git reflog to try to find the last point where history made sense. Or I guess you could just remember that you can introduce arbitrary existing commit refs into an interactive rebase like 1718627440 did. But I said I didn’t want to think about this anymore.

It does take a few days to stop missing interactive rebase.

But say you’re in the middle of working on something and you wish you had a commit you made last week on an experimental branch on the current branch before the last commit you made. That’s jj rebase -r oldercommit --before @-, without interrupting your work. I don’t like to think about how I’d do that with git.

I don’t know about you, but if you ever run git commit --amend, git rebase -i, git reset, git reset --hard, git stash, git add ., git push --force-with-lease, then these are all workflows that jujutsu makes easier and less error-prone.

Yeah again fair enough. You can use formal methods to provably maintain invariants that are useful to you in development without shipping formal proofs of full system behavior.

That’s fair I suppose I’m being a bit obtuse.

But this level of formal verification gets you to the level of confidence you’d have if you had written the program in Rust or Java in the first place. The original post was talking about formally verifying what the system does as a whole, not just verifying the absence of a certain class of errors. I’m not questioning the value of eliminating null pointer dereferences that do exist, just the value of holding a formal proof of the absence of null pointer dereferences in a certain piece of code, given that there are many other possible bugs that that code could contain.

I mean, if I had a formal proof that my banking system could never double-spend money, that could be a useful property that someone would want to know about the system. If I have a proof that my banking system never dereferences a null pointer, there’s not very much I can be sure of on the basis of such a proof.

I get that, but I meant more philosophically, why is it especially useful to verify that no behavior is undefined if the defined behavior is also not defined, other that according to the compiler spec?

I’m not just being funny, but how do you define undefined behavior?

You’re upset that they banned the illegal drugs but not the legal ones? They probably just need more education to reach your level of logical thinking.

Thanks for responding. I think that makes sense. I’m definitely thinking of it from a language semantics perspective and this is a case where type erasure feels particularly counterintuitive to me.

Would including the specialized method in the derived interface bytecode preemptively take us all the way to C++ templates and ruin everything that’s good about Java? Or is it a matter of type erasure being consistently applied and if it were ignored selectively it would make everything more confusing?

Like if we had final class Foo implements Func<…> then we’d presumably need to supply a typed implementation of apply, so the fact that we can get away with the generic one in a specialized interface feels surprising, even though I can see why it’s technically correct.

I’m not sure I fully understand why the compiler can’t derive the specialized apply method in this case.

I guess I follow the technical reason that the interface doesn’t override the method so there can’t be a specialized version of it. But that’s only visible through reflection right? Not in the direct language semantics?

Also 1 in 6.2 billion for Safari on an iPhone. Also the explanation on the bottom is very small and AI generated.

As you claim to understand, they don’t know things, they sort of drift on vibes. Telling them to refuse things they think will be hard will only accomplish making them more annoying.

Yes and you suggested Anthropic have their coding agent refuse to attempt to solve anything it can’t find a preexisting solution to in case it turns out to be hard, if I understand you correctly.

Knowing how hard something will be to do before attempting it is precisely the sort of impossible thing that it couldn’t do.

Have you ever tried using one? Or just understanding them?