694 karma · joined December 16, 2014
It is not yet the same as C++ or Python, for two reasons:
1) Ambiguity is still the default. Formal languages force you to resolve it up front.
English lets you paper over it until the model or the compiler (the human) notices.
2) The "compiler" (the LLM) is statistical and non-deterministic. Same prompt, different day, different bugs. A real language has a spec.
The practical move is to treat English as a high-level specification language, keep the generated artifacts inspectable, and "still know enough of the lower layers to notice when the translation went wrong."^1
[1] This is the key that is where humans can still be necessary, or at least another pass through the LLMs to decide on the best path, in the compiled code. Compilers for other languages do the same C -> Binary, etc.
A conventional compiler is bound by an as-if rule. It can take many internal routes, but the observable behavior has to match the language spec. Same source, same defined semantics. If two gcc runs emit different binaries, the program is still supposed to compute the same answers on the same inputs. That is why people treat the source as the artifact and the binary as disposable.
An LLM compiling English has no as-if rule unless you add one. "Sort the users by last active" can become a stable sort, an unstable sort, a SQL order by, an in-memory timsort, or a query that drops people with null timestamps. All of those can look like success. They are different programs. The model is not optimizing under a spec. It is filling in the parts you did not write.
A human who can read the destination language still notices when the chosen path is the wrong program.
A second model pass can compare paths, but only if you give it a way to score them: tests, types, invariant
So the historical analogy still holds, with one correction. JavaScript and Python were dismissed for being too easy, but they already had grammars and evaluators. English is easier still, and the evaluator is a statistical translator that will invent a dialect if you let it. The practical move stays the same: treat English as the spec language, pin the generated artifacts behind tests, and keep enough fluency in the lower layer to see when the translation chose a different program than the one you meant. The human is not required because the computer is weak. The human is required because the source language still leaves room for more than one destination.
Now we just code in english and the computer does the rest.
Hazard Lights: Yes, the vehicle will automatically turn on its hazard lights
Controlled Slowdown: The car gradually slows down to a complete stop within its current lane.
Horn & Unlock: Once fully stopped, the vehicle places itself in Park, unlocks the doors, and may sound the horn continuously to signal for help.
Currently, Autopilot and supervised FSD are classified as Level 2 Driver Assistance Systems. Regulatory frameworks (NHTSA in the US, UNECE internationally) mandate that:
1) No Autonomous Lane Changes During Failure: Level 2 systems are not permitted to execute pull-over maneuvers (changing across active lanes to reach a shoulder) without driver supervision or dedicated Level 3/4 autonomous certification.
2) Risk of Pulling Over Unsupervised: A car pulling off to the right shoulder unguided could potentially cross multiple lanes of traffic or steer into a blind spot/guardrail if the driver is incapacitated.
3) Default Safety State: Regulators require the vehicle to safely bring itself to a stop in the path it is currently tracking (the active lane) with hazards illuminated, rather than attempting an unmonitored multi-lane drift.
https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/ncc-230607-001-571108-...
AI is a tool, just like other tools we use. And it's clearly a useful one.
It may not have been that "clearly" even just a year ago, but it's no longer in question today.
Now we have democracy manipulation spearheaded by AI bot manipulation of their very own citizenry. Not limited to UK, USA is deep in it too.
This is likely due to a combination of mass funding for the AI companies, but also they are trying to governmentally restrict which countries get access to these cards so certain countries get a head start. The only way to lock that down is to have them literally locked in their own GPU prisons (data centers). Third reason is it does make it possible to train the models faster by having them in the same data center connected directly. Having them distributed to everyone would slow down training considerably.
The current way to 'own' decent RAM and GPUs right now is through the stock market it seems.
> 'it excludes games provided via subscription services, free-to-play games, and games that are inherently playable offline indefinitely. It also prohibits the continued sale or distribution of games that have become unusable due to service termination.'
The only winners are lawyers. NOT gamers. The lawyers always like to call their laws "protect X" lol
``` write a custom crawler that will crawl every page on a site (internal links to the original domain only, scroll down to mimic a human, and save the output as a WebP screenshot, HTML, Markdown, and structured JSON. Make it designed to run locally in a terminal on a linux machine using headless Google Chrome and take advantage of multiple cores to run multiple pages simultaneously while keeping in mind that it might have to throttle if the server gets hit too fast from the same IP. ```
Might use available open source software such as python, playwright, beautifulsoup4, pillow, aiofiles, trafilatura