> It's how you can know what an octopus is thinking
You mean, it’s how you can assign anthropomorphised assumptions to the octopus. There’s a world difference between having semi reliable predictive power and actually knowing something.
Yes, exactly how you assign those assumptions to humans despite having no way of actually knowing that they have rich internal lives comparable to your own. It is the ability to simulate a mind foreign to your own and anticipate how it would respond to circumstances.
We don’t have to assume with humans. We can introspect our emotions and discuss them with others. Though we can’t be precise, we can understand and distinguish concepts like shame vs humiliation which appear to be (effectively) universal to the human experience.
That is a world apart from seeing an octopus react to something and assuming that anything resembling emotions are involved at all.
From the operating system’s perspective, everything is the user. Or everything is an app developer. Depends on perspective. Disambiguating reliably, in a way you’d consider reasonable, is not trivial (and arguably impossible).
Phone-style isolation is more like giving each app a separate user account. With that level of isolation and robust permissions, apps can do very little "on your behalf".
How do you do anything on a computer that’s not via an app of some description? Do you make arbitrary exceptions for the likes of zsh and chmod? How does the OS know that chmod was knowingly run by the user, and not by some “sudo wget” exploit?
> How do you do anything on a computer that’s not via an app of some description? Do you make arbitrary exceptions for the likes of zsh and chmod? How does the OS know that chmod was knowingly run by the user, and not by some “sudo wget” exploit?
I'm not sure what the purpose of the question is, because a unixy command line doesn't use phone-style permissions. I didn't say everything works this way.
If I installed photoshop with phone-style permissions, it wouldn't be able to invoke chmod and wouldn't even be able to access my downloads folder.
(Trying to tighten down a command line shell ends up being a tangent, but the short answer is that zsh itself would need to be trusted and hardened, and wget would not be allowed to run chmod. When it comes to downloading a script and then running that script on purpose, you probably just have to accept that doing so bypasses the permission system. Thankfully I very rarely need to do something like that.)
This essay perfectly encapsulates my own experience. My biggest frustration is that the AI is astonishingly good at making awful slop which somehow works. It’s got no taste, no concern for elegance, no eagerness for the satisfyingly terse. My job has shifted from code writer to quality control officer.
Nowhere is this more obvious in my current projects than with CRUD interface building. It will go nuts building these elaborate labyrinths and I’m sitting there baffled, bemused, foolishly hoping that THIS time it would recognise that a single SQL query is all that’s needed. It knows how to write complex SQL if you insist, but it never wants to.
But even with those frustrations, damn it is a lot faster than writing it all myself.
The "no taste" thing is real when AI is in generate-for-me mode. It's trying to fulfill your request, and won't evaluate it unsolicited. But if you change the relationship and let it react to what you're building instead of building it for you, aesthetic judgment shows up immediately. It'll tell you something is ugly or overengineered or missing the point. The taste was always in the model, it just can't express it while it's busy being obedient.
This is the thing that gets me. The code compiles. Passes tests. So you stop reading it. Why wouldn't you.
Then three weeks later you're tracing some control flow that makes no sense and nobody knows why it's structured that way. Not you, not the model. I've been treating it like code from a contractor now, review every line same as a junior dev's PR. Gets tedious but the alternative is worse.
I’ve been treating it like a glorified autocomplete, or a glorified search and replace. Everything else is saxophone jazz when I’m writing for a string quartet: useful for inspiration, useful for understanding what isn’t clearly explained, sometimes it builds a decent first attempt, occasionally it gets shockingly close, but I’ve learned to never let my guard down. Go too far and untangling its slop becomes burdensome. Leave it to its own devices for more than a few rounds and it can become so unfixable it’s easier to start from scratch.
If it’s MIT code derived from MIT code, in what way is its openness ”quasi”? Issues of attribution and crediting diminish the karma of the derived project, but I don’t see how it diminishes the level of openness.
FOSS licensing can only exist in terms of Copyright. Without Copyright, you cannot license FOSS. If something has an incorrect Copyright attribution, then the license can be viewed as invalid until this deficiency has been corrected (obv. depending on local laws, etc).
On top of this, it would not be unreasonable for the numerous authors of llama.cpp to issue DMCA takedown requests if Ollama is unwilling to correct it.
2. Even with today's prices, storage is a relatively minor expense for professionals working at this level.
3. When material above 4K is used in a serious workflow, it tends to be at the acquisition phase only. In post production, raw files get transcoded to a proxy format (e.g. ProRes 422 Proxy) for editing.
4. In multi-user workflows, media is commonly accessed directly from shared network storage instead of duplicated onto individual machines.
5. Effects work is normally handled on a shot-by-shot basis. Even if they're working on local copies, we're talking mere minutes of raw material, if not seconds.
But surely puberty, not just maturity, is necessary to fully understand the sexual experience and whether your feelings about yourself crystalise differently in the presence of sexual drive. Not to mention, the idea of delaying puberty seems like an invitation for unrelated and/or unforeseen downstream consequences on biological health.
It is not. Precocious sexual drive is possibly amongst the worst things there is for gaining sexual maturity. Also known as 'thinking with your dick'. CSA aside, you can do a ton of damage to your life by just going along with your sexual drive.
I am a virgin at 27 years old. What am I missing about the sexual experience? Is it somehow locked out to me? Or… can I access it intellectually, and reason about it with its ups and downs?
There's a reason the consent age does not start at puberty.
Sexual identity is an important component of gender identity. Encouraging people to make conclusions about their gender identity before they understand their sexual identity seems risky to me, especially when a child is being asked to make decisions with potentially life-altering medical consequences.
To be clear, a person does not need to have had sex to understand their sexual identity. They need to know what they find attractive and how their sexual identity relates to their own body. Even if someone feels like the opposite gender, that does not necessarily mean their sexual identity will automatically align with that.
It may be true that the transgender experience is something more fundamental to the self than “mere” sex. But when the choice is between one set of trade-offs and another, such as intervention versus non-intervention, I would contend that understanding one’s sexual identity is a critical piece of information.
Tarpening and Eberhard left Tesla long before the company had any “change the world” influence on the automotive landscape. If you want to give credit to anyone other than Musk, give it to Tom Gage for designing the AC Propulsion tzero. Tarpening and Eberhard’s business plan was little more than “make a handful of tzero clones for weird enthusiasts like us.”
This always gets missed when people shit on Musk for not starting Tesla. Tesla was a complete shitshow before Musk took over. Arguably it was dumb for Musk to invest in the business in the first place.
In the end it worked because he put in even more money and was on the right side of history in regards to Lithium-Ion battery evolution.
I would also say that JB Straubel was CTO when they designed the LiIon battery backs and made them safe enough to use.
Tesla is a study in basically doing everything wrong except having the general right idea for the future, Li-battery electric car. Its pretty clear they had no experience with cars or manufacturing.
Capability creates reality first, and legal consensus usually arrives later. It has always been thus. On land, states must back claims with an ability to project force. In low Earth orbit, words mean little unless you can literally, physically show up and enforce them.
You mean, it’s how you can assign anthropomorphised assumptions to the octopus. There’s a world difference between having semi reliable predictive power and actually knowing something.
reply