jarpschop

I don't think Turing knew about the existence of the lambda calculus when he wrote the paper. It was later that he decided to study his PhD under Church and move to Princeton.

A year ago he said that language models would never be able to explain why if you move a table, the bottle on top of it would not fall. He definitely had no idea what was coming with LLMs. And now he is arrogant enough to say "we all knew what capabilities LLMs would have". He has no intelectual humility or honesty at all. I at least admit openly that language models blew my mind.

Lost respect for his opinions massively after seeing how he lied about the topic.

I have been thinking a lot about it recently and I do think they are significant.

If you look for example at chagpt4, it achieves a certain sort of intelligence. It gives you many sensible responses.

The thing Is that this is basically what we humans do. Give so-so explanations about all sorts of stuff that are reasonable-sounding.

Im confident that they well become evidently better than all of us. More complete arguments, with better data backing that up that the regular folk. In some sense I feel that they almost above that threshold.

The basic opinions of people are neither sophisticated nor deep. And llms are always improving to become exactly that.

This should be a required reading for everyone at OpenAI. If such simple programs can fool even intelligent people, I can't imagine what an infinitely more capable gpt4 will be able to achieve socially.

As Yuval Harari correctly points out, with the current mastery of language, AIs are starting to hack the OS on which humans operate: words and ideas.

I find Python and Haskell both very elegant.

People would get hooked to that worse than heroin lol. I recently fell for a girl and being without her definitely felt like having abstinence syndrome. I was obsessively and relentlessly thinking about her every waking second.

Sure, as more time goes on and the thing starts to become more evident. It will become clearer that bringing a human being into a dying world is a deeply immoral thing to do. It will not be soon though.

A being is conscious if and only if it feels like something to be that being. What you're referring to is self-consciousness. Goldfish are most surely conscious but not self-conscious.

That doesn't sound dystopian at all. Got to love capitalism!

Throughout history, people have always avoided naturalism, almost at any cost. I think that this in part has to do with the crude reality it implies, it a very hard pill to swallow to anyone who understands it well. However, time and again, what has been attributed to non-natural, magical entities, has turn out false. If I wanted to avoid becoming the next sun-worshipping, cow-worshipping idolatrous, I would be very wary of any supernatural claim.

Nietzsche said the same thing as Schopenhauer, that reading too much may make you stupid in the end; and for the same reasons.

I always wonder. That has to be unsustainable, there is no way everybody can be borrowing like hell even for simple consumption and not having that collapse one moment.

Of course, there is already an endless number of guns on people hands and basements. The fact that the US is the rich country with the highest murder rate is all the proof one needs that tighter gun laws make for a safer place.

I work at a very large software company (which you know of) that has a corporate O'Reilly subscription and it was mentioned recently that DDIA was the most read book of the org.

Great book! I went trough it to better understand Turing's paper. The annotations in it and remarks of Turing's bugs help clarify a bunch of stuff. I would bet that the original reviewers of the paper had no idea what Turing what writing about or where to lazy to check it and to find the things that Petzold notes. I still remember the chapter where turing's development of maths in the paper resembles Brouwer's intuitionism.

They will. People are already dying of climate change.

I hope fertility rates plummet because of this and population goes downhill fast. I can't see how people are deciding to have kids knowing how unaffordable everything is becoming.

The difference with revelation is that climate change is real. It is happening and will continue to happen.

Sure, but there you have an argument against economic libertarianism (no taxes) in any case.

Natural selection is a very powerful process.

I prefer code in the end because the flexibility is provides. At the end, a bunch of edge cases and weird situations that can't be handled by the simplified solution will arise, and in those situations having a complete programming language is the only way to get above them.I find the simplifying assumptions that low-code frameworks rely on sooner or later end up braking.

It wouldn't surprise me to see humanity go extinct a few hundred years from now.

Endless growth on a finite planet is an impossibility. A reasonable population size is more conducive to a good quality of life for everyone.

You're certainly not an iOS developer.

The USA wants the monopoly on spying people. They don't like competition!

You don’t need to have intelligence. Intelligence is just a form of fitness, but other species have had ecological hyper-fitness before (look at what happened with rabbits in Australia). All of them display the same behavior: massive growth and then overshoot and collapse. We’re exactly on the same path right now. I don’t think is very plausible to make an inhospitable planet livable.

This way of living, with that many people on the planet is not sustainable. We are on a runaway train to extinction and we want it to go faster. The economy!

When I see a post like this I just remember this plot. No matter how much wealth is produced if it is shared unequally. https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQyTbD6...

All those Silicon Valley startup bros would be loving capitalism. It gives you the highest standard of living in history!

Sorry for asking the pessimistic question, by no means do i intend to be a troll, but don't you think that it is irresponsible bringing children in to a world where you can't even take the free evenings after working 8+ hours and giving your best? (because you need to "stay competitive or something"). The developer culture of living to work (instead of the other way around) and being totally cool about it is something that still surprises me. I understand that you like coding (me too), but not having time to do anything else (not even raise a kid, watching a movie, reading a book or just resting) appears to you as something completely normal. I simply don't get that ideology (i mean, is like a type of slavery where the slave's hobby is precisely and just what he/she does for work). I say it as someone studying computer engineering.