> IMO the way this should work is that Google can make their software however they want provided they don't do anything to stop me from changing it to work the way I want.
That's exactly how it is. You're free to get your soldering iron out, or your debugger and reverse engineer anything you want. I don't mean to argue unfairly, but all we're talking about here is the relative ease with which you can do what you want to do. How easy do they have to make it?
As for their software, as delivered, there are literally an infinite number of ways that it stops you from changing it. Maybe you want everything in Pig Latin, or a language you made up yourself. Do they have to design around this desire? Do they have to make this easy to do?
Yes, that is a real problem. But it doesn't justify arguing uncritically or unrealistically in other areas. I think people should be free to do anything they want with their own devices. They should be able to install any software they want. That's very different than demanding someone make their software exactly how you desire. ie. You should be able to install your own operating system, you don't get to tell them how theirs should operate.
There are legitimate concerns being addressed by these feature restrictions.
Of course it's your phone, but the whole point of using Android is that it makes a lot of choices for you. It forces a billion things on you, and this is really no different than any of the others. Everything from UI colors, to the way every feature actually works. For instance, should you be able to text message one million people at a time? You might want to, but Android doesn't offer that feature. Do you want to install spyware on your girlfriends phone? Maybe that's your idea of complete freedom, but the fact that Google makes it harder, is a good thing, not a bad thing.
If you don't like their choices, you should be able to install other software you do like. There should be completely free options that people can choose if they desire. But the majority of people just want a working phone, that someone like Google is taking great pains to make work safely and reliably.
Force pushing doesn't actually remove anything from the remote repository, only changes some references for which commits the branches point to. Plus, any forks on github will be completely unaffected. It's not perfect, since Github doesn't seem to offer any history of such reference alterations (a la the reflog), but it's still a valuable offsite backup from a developer's perspective.
Why not? It's their operating system, and they're trying to balance quite a few competing priorities. Scammers are not a threat to dismiss out of hand (i've had family who were victims).
For it to be truly considered open source, you should be able to fork it and create your own edits to change the defaults however you wish. Whether that is still a possibility or not, is a completely separate issue from how they proceed with their own fork.
Maybe i'm misunderstanding your point, but human's have pretty abysmal data efficiency, too. We have to use tools for everything... ledgers, spreadsheets, data-bases, etc. It'll be the same for an AGI, there won't be any reason for it to remember every little detail, just be able to use the appropriate tool, as needed.
I think the point the poster was making, is that there is an asterisk beside Gukesh and Liren's world champ status. Nobody really thinks they're the actual world-champ, regardless of what FIDE says. FIDE failed to attract the best player, to even play.
No, you're failing to acknowledge that your own assertion that intelligence can't be based on a non-dynamic, non-learning technology is just wrong. And not only wrong, proof to the contrary, is demonstrated by your very own existence. If you accept that you are at the very base of your tech stack, just atoms, then you simply must acknowledge that intelligence can be built on top of a non-learning, non-dynamic base technology.
All the rest is just hand waiving that it's "different". You're either atoms, or you're somehow atoms + extra magic. I'm assuming you're not going to claim that you're extra magic, in which case, your assertions are just demonstrably false, and predicated on unjustified claims about the nature of biology.
You're ignoring the point. The individual atoms of YOUR body do not learn. They do not respond to experience. You categorically stated that any system built on such components can not demonstrate intelligence. You need to think long and hard before posting this argument again.
Once you admit that higher level structures can be intelligent, even though they're built on non-dynamic, non-adaptive technology -- then there's as much reason to think that software running on silicon can do it too. Just like the higher level chemistry, nuclear physics, and any other "biological software" can do on top of the non-dynamic, non-learning, atoms of your body.
The other day I slammed the brakes at a green light, because I could hear sirens approaching -- even though the buildings on the corner prevented any view of the approaching fire trucks or their flashing lights. Do Teslas not have this ability?
The atoms of your body are not dynamic structures, they do not reengineer or reconfigure themselves in response to success/failure or rules discovery. So by your own logic, you can not be intelligent, because your body is running on a non-dynamic structure. Your argument lacks an appreciation for higher level abstractions, built on non-dynamic structures. That's exactly what is happening in your body, and also with the software that runs on silicon. Unless you believe the atoms in your body are "magic" and fundamentally different from the atoms in silicon; there's really no merit in your argument.
You can play that game with any argument. "Consciousness" is just an abstraction, not the reality, which makes people who desperately want humans to be special, attribute it to something beyond reach of any other part of reality. It's an emotional need, placated by a philosophical outlook. Consciousness is just a model or map for a particular part of reality, and ironically focusing on it as somehow being the most important thing, makes you miss reality.
The reality is, we have devices in the real world that have demonstrable, factual capabilities. They're on the spectrum of what we'd call "intelligence". And therefore, it's natural that we compare them to other things that are also on that spectrum. That's every bit as much factual, as anything you've said.
It's just stupid to get so lost in philosophical terminology, that we have to dismiss them as mistaken maps or models. The only people doing that, are hyper focused on how important humans are, and what makes them identifiably different than other parts of reality. It's a mistake that the best philosophers of every age keep making.
> An algorithm is an algorithm. A computer is a computer. These things matter.
Sure. But we're allowed to notice abstractions that are similar between these things. Unless you believe that logic and "thinking" are somehow magic, and thus beyond the realm of computation, then there's no reason to think they're restricted to humanity.
It is human ego and hubris that keeps demanding we're special and could never be fully emulated in silicon. It's the exact same reasoning that put the earth at the center of the universe, and humans as the primary focus of God's will.
That said, nobody is confused that LLM's are the intellectual equal of humans today. They're more powerful in some ways, and tremendously weaker in other ways. But pointing those differences out, is not a logical argument in proving their ultimate abilities.
I think the distinction without a difference is a tool being deterministic or not. Fundamentally, its nature doesn't matter, if in actual practice it outperforms everything else.
I'm not sure pure determinism is actually a desirable goal. I mean, if you ask the best programmer in the world the same question every day, you're likely to eventually get a new answer at some point. But if you ask him, or I ask him, hopefully he gives the same good answer, to us both. In any case, he's not just a power hungry Google, because he can contextualize our question, and understand us when we ask in very obscured ways; maybe without us even understanding what we're actually looking for.
People keep trotting this argument out. But a band saw is not deterministic either, it can snap in the middle of a cut and destroy what you're working on. The point is, we only treat it like it's deterministic, because most of the time it's reliable enough that it just does what we want. AI technology will definitely get to the same level eventually. Clinging on to the fact that it isn't yet at that level today, is just cope, not a principled argument.
You're not wrong. But your same objection was made against compilers. That they are opaque, have differences from one to another, and can introduce bugs, they're not actually deterministic if you upgrade the compiler, etc. They separate the programmer from the code the computer eventually executes.
In any case, clinging to the fact that this technology is different in some ways, continues to ignore the many ways it's exactly the same. People continue to cling to what they know, and find ways to argue against what's new. But the writing is plainly on the wall, regardless of how much we struggle to emotionally separate ourselves from it.
I used the future tense. Maybe it will be one hundred years from now, who knows; but the main point still stands. It would just be nice to move the conversation beyond "but I enjoy coding!".
It seems like you're doing a lot of work to miss the actual point. Focusing on the minutiae of the analogy is a distraction from the over arching and obvious point. It has nothing to do with how you feel, it has to do with how you will compete in a world with others who feel differently.
There were carpenters who refused to use power tools, some still do. They are probably happy -- and that's great, all the power to them. But they're statistically irrelevant, just as artisanal hand-crafted computer coding will be. There was a time when coders rejected high level languages, because the only way they felt good about their code is if they handcrafted the binary codes, and keyed them directly into the computer without an assembler. Times change.
Nobody is trying to talk anyone out of their hobby or artisanal creativeness. A lot of people enjoy walking, even after the invention of the automobile. There's nothing wrong with that, there are even times when it's the much more efficient choice. But in the context of say transporting packages across the country... it's not really relevant how much you enjoy one or the other; only one of them can get the job done in a reasonable amount of time. And we can assume that's the context and spirit of the OP's argument.
Maybe you disagree with it, but it seems like a pretty straightforward argument: A lot of us dismiss AI because "it can't be trusted to do as good a job as me". The OP is arguing that someone, who can do better than most of us, disagrees with this line of thinking. And if we have respect for his abilities, and recognize them as better than our own, we should perhaps re-assess our own rationale in dismissing the utility of AI assistance. If he can get value out of it, surely we can too if we don't argue ourselves out of giving it a fair shake. The flip side of that argument might be that you have to be a much better programmer than most of us are, to properly extract value out of the AI... maybe it's only useful in the hands of a real expert.
This is a really well done talk, with a very interesting peek into how the port is going. But beyond that, it's also a great example of how to give a technical talk in general, walking the line between bringing the uninitiated along, without talking down to anyone; all the while providing truly useful (and new) information. And kudos too, to whoever recorded the audio and visuals, and posted them for us to see -- if only all tech talks were recorded this well!
Thanks for sharing this one. There's so many brilliant and funny little vignettes in this piece. I'm amazed at what some people are able to do, so far outside anything I could dream about creating.
I'm sure you're being honest about your intent, but a glancing read of your previous comment sounded categorical, to my ear at least, "And they've all been proven false."
It's hard to know how these pieces fit together, especially if you have a fuzzy mental-model of the objectives and potential benefits. Is there a gentle introduction you'd recommend?
Isn't this more of a theoretical problem, rather than a practical one? In what situations do you want people to discover your key? You create a key pair for Github, upload the public key, and you're done; you can securely communicate with Github. Nobody ever has to discover it. Do they?
Do you use Firefox on Linux, too? 4K Videos freeze so often for me, I don't even try watching them online, and always just download them with yt-dlp. It doesn't bother me enough to give Chrome a try, but maybe that'd make a difference.
Linux can exist because there is a huge industry producing inexpensive open hardware. If that industry transitions to producing only locked down hardware, it will hurt Linux and all open source software. Be careful what you wish for.