So in other words, they were asking for it?
2,327 karma · joined January 12, 2018
I keep checking back on LLMs every couple months and while they are now great for figuring out bugs in a system I don’t know much about (say in my use of a framework I’ve never used before), it’s been super helpful. But whenever I have it write a lot of code, even in a not huge project, it mostly works but it’s like a gum and popsicle stick machine gun and I’m scared of what large org code bases will look like in a few years.
Like if someone gave you a magic wand that let you conjure a mature open source library that did most of what you needed for your project, that would be amazing right? Would you refuse to use it because you miss writing your own database or API framework? Or would you just get to build way more ambitious things?
Software is already stitching a bunch of things together in most cases, why not stitch together things made by a machine instead of by an open source developer? What percent of developers primarily work on bare metal algorithms? .0001%? Everything else is stitching together existing pieces at some level of abstraction.
The real difference seems to be the non-determinism, not that the code is produced automatically. And I think a lot of the work right now that people don’t like seems to be people dealing with the non-determinism, not that so much code can now get generated.
I have read accounts of people have similar freak outs about higher level languages, object oriented programming and web services, and all of those just made more demand for software because the potential of software has not nearly been reached. I wonder if the extreme growth of the field has resulted in most people feeling like those huge changes that reduced the amount of code that had to be written per unit of functionality have been around since the dawn of time, and now that another level of code generation has been reached it’s the end of the world (again).
Is it? That’s a theory, but for the vast majority of human history there was a very different pattern and I don’t think we’ve changed enough since then evolution-wise to have instincts for a completely different life pattern.
Like, in hunter gatherer bands, there aren’t really “parents” in the modern sense through a child’s development. And then they don’t start relying on their peers, they’ve been with a mixed age group of siblings and cousins since the age of 3 or so. And then they slowly transition into being a member of the adult male or female group.
I don’t really know how what you’re describing would map into instincts from that ancestral life pattern.
The instinctive behavior (on average) of girls seems to be more compatible with living in boxes and following ostensibly (from the child’s perspective) arbitrary rules.
The boy could have a very different experience from the girl by running into disproportionately more <behavioral correction>, and however healthy <behavioral correction> is in the family system (and wherever else they are exposed to) could determine whether the child more exposed to it has issues while the child less exposed to it wouldn’t, despite living in the same environment and being treated the same relative to their actual behaviors.
I’m not asserting that this has happened in your case, by the way, your account of the situation just doesn’t rule it out. I wonder if you’ve considered this?
Though, I am coming from a perspective rooted in the theory of human evolution, where for me warfare is just if the men fighting instinctively register that it’s just based on the true situation (the instinct which propaganda aims to stir up artificially with lies), and this precludes basically all top down state directed offensive warfare from being just. If there was a draft or if the men were not aware of the real reasons for the war, it isn’t a just war. That covers everything America was involved in for at least 100 years. Something like the Poles defending themselves against Germany could be considered just, though as far as I can tell that war started due to the Polish government stubbornly acting against the interests of its own people (land bridge and Danzig demands weren’t that unreasonable, not worth sacrificing your own people over), and if the government is acting in an unjust way towards the interests of its own people then the reaction of others becomes sort of a fruit of the poison tree situation (defense is just in isolation, but the actions of the Polish state in general were not IMO).
I don’t really care what the Catholics think or thought, they were operating from a pre-Darwinian understanding of human nature which is largely incorrect.
Wouldn’t shortages produce basically the same incentive structure regarding competition or national security requirements? Like the demand for RAM is actually way up, so if they don’t raise prices enough the inventory will just quickly become depleted.
Poor people typically don’t live in the same neighborhoods as wealthy people in America. Wealthy neighborhood public schools tend to have lavish facilities from the tax base, so it’s more like “wealthy guy X doesn’t want to pay for the very fancy facilities he isn’t even using”, not “wealthy guy X doesn’t want to pay to send his poor neighbor’s kid to school at all”.
Or blackmailed enough? People seem to be forgetting about that aspect of the Epstein ordeal.
A population being, on average, substantially less able to comply with social rules (including murder etc) is a perfectly valid reason to bar them from entering (which I mentioned in my original comment). But let’s be realistic about what the problem is. Rhetoric about them being “bad people” essentially does get a knee jerk reaction from progressives, and I’m suggesting we focus on a different angle (which is apparently so compatible with the progressive framing that readers are confused).
As far as I’m aware, it very much depended on who you know, who your family or tribe is, and the power dynamics between the various groups in the territory.
It’s not as if laws and enforcement banning these actions are universal today, and they absolutely weren’t universal not that long ago.
PS don’t miss where I said… > While at the same time, it is a valid reason to not let them in.
Japanese people all have a long family history of living inside of the same flavor of society they live in now.
Outsiders might on average have a harder time coping with the expectations of Japanese society, because they don’t share this multigenerational experience in the society. The degree to which they will have a hard time likely depends on how similar the society their own multigenerational experience comes from is to Japanese society, along the most relevant behavioral dimensions.
It’s not that they are bad people, they just have a harder time with the system. We can’t really blame them for that, can we? While at the same time, it is a valid reason to not let them in.
Regarding USA contributing more in the past. Cleaner alternatives had not yet been invented at the time. We are supposed to make up for people of our country in the past, most of whom are not even distantly related to ourselves, using the only mass work saving technology that was available at the time? While people in other places use that same old technology today when they don’t have to? Haha yeah I’m not going to do that, and anyone who bites on that one should not be allowed anywhere near decision making at any level.
On per capita - atmosphere does not speak per capita. Atmosphere speaks in absolutes.
If this is the highest priority issue, which it must be for climate activists who buy the doom scenarios (I’m not saying they are wrong about that), climate activists should be urging we ban trade with nations who aren’t on such and such emissions reduction schedule, which is not to be exceeded by USA along strategically relevant dimensions (for example not to affect the economy negatively beyond how China et al are affected negatively), and to be verified by a UN inspection and analysis team à la nuclear weapons.
I have seen precisely zero climate activists advocate for this, and I’m sure you’re going to throw a laundry list of excuses at me (“well actually economic disentanglement is dangerous, we don’t want war, clearly you don’t understand this if you’re making this argument”, etc). The point isn’t to actually ban trade, the point is to apply sufficient pressure to the others to step down emissions while not harming any party relative to the others.
Farm labor is not very regulated, but until about 10 minutes ago it was flooded with cheap foreign labor which seriously distorted the pricing mechanism for labor. And, that distortion helped to paper over some serious money supply expansion, i.e. the foreign labor helped food not get as much more expensive over time as it otherwise would have. If we keep things steady for several years we will see the market stabilize and rebalance, albeit now at a higher level (due to past money supply expansion finally being realized in prices).
*Note that I don’t really support the haphazard way this has been done, and I’m not confident that things actually will be held steady given the political environment, I’m just stating what theoretically would happen if they were.
If we look at it from the other direction, we are artificially increasing quality of life by taking advantage of foreigners who have no better option than to work for little pay. Getting rid of this seems positive?
This has to be a brand new sentence (post 1950s anyway).
But similar to your angle, I’ve wondered if the climate change messaging is secretly targeted towards resource depletion. If USA switches off oil and oil runs out, who cares if others didn’t switch? But people have a hard time processing “going to run out in 50 years” as a crisis, so instead we get an apocalypse angle, I suppose because humans love the apocalypse (see: various religions).
So are you recommending that, for example, protestants of German descent begin preferentially funding or buying from people in their in-group? People of anglo descent should start preferring other anglos? Catholics should buy from catholics?
I think the issue is that it's considered okay for some groups to do it while simultaneously being considered EXTREMELY EVIL for other groups to do it.
We can't really recommend that other groups do it with a straight face, they would be instantly shunned and vilified.
EDIT: When I say BUY I mean B2B deals, not consumer level, hence "funding or buying". Sorry for the confusion.
I’m curious how you propose that business ownership should work?
I don't picture new data centers being banned outright. I picture a lot more regulatory friction driven by public reaction which is in large part driven by media (which then also amplifies the perception of the public reaction).
Regulatory friction is generally considered beneficial to established companies, because it makes it harder for new companies to enter the market and for smaller companies to expand.
For example if in the 1960s computers became regulated because they will replace a lot of jobs or enable the building of advanced weapons or whatever, IBM would probably be in a very different position today.