221–230 of 291 posts
You need to first address 1)What is work? 2)Why we need to work? Animals don't "work". Not atleast for their own sake. If there is enough green pasture and water around, they don't even migrate to other places. So if work is meant to provide food and shelter and if machines can ensure that, humans don't need to "work". Wealth is only a reserve capacity to help future generations so that they don't need to work for th…
It's a status thing, right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you are asking if the machine translated from one language to another for him, the answer is essentially guaranteed to be yes. Inputting raw machine code hasn't been the norm since the 1950s.
Compilers and AI are not the same.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you are asking if the machine translated from one language to another for him, the answer is essentially guaranteed to be yes. Inputting raw machine code hasn't been the norm since the 1950s.
Compilers and AI are not the same.
I.e. some source code gets compiled, the output gets decompiled again, the result gets compiled again, and so on.
Now do the same with LLM: start with a prompt, it generates a program. Then an LLM examines that program by looking at the source, running it, etc., and is tasked to describe it, i.e. turn it into a prompt again. Then that prompt is used to generate a program, which is examined and turned into a prompt again, and so on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You've been able to Google your symptoms and get a maybe answer for twenty years. I don't see how AI replaces doctors any more than WebMD did.
By achieving the same or a higher level of effectiveness than doctors, obviously.
I have been coding in one form or another since the 80s. Back then it was 68k assembly for me. People seem to forget that "software development" is really a big bloated abstraction between "I want or need" and the product that serves that want or need. It's hard to write and debug in ones and zeros so we invented languages. Software projects have been difficult to schedule so we invented all kinds of ceremony. What w…
It's possible that the elite will control most part of wealth generation, keeping it for themselves. The rest of society will develop an underclass economy and work for each other. Essentially a worldwide slum.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Compilers and AI are not the same.
Compilers and assemblers are not the same either, but the human experience is the same in all cases: You input one language into the machine and another language comes out. Implementation details are immaterial.
It's like a light switch where the light has a slightly different colour every time you turn it on, sometimes the colour is very different, and sometimes it emits bursts of heavy gamma radiation. And the argument is "you flick a switch, and what you perceive in that room changes, it's the same experience." (which is a neat way to put it, because it's true even when you get evaporated by the gamma radiation burst)
That this isn't "the same kind of tool" than just a light switch and a bulb isn't even an interesting conversation to have. Of course it's not, not even close. A piece of string is not a steel rod just because you can stretch it out, take a photo of it, and play pretend.
So the really interesting bit to me is that this level of argument is even made. It's nonsense, but if the nonsense gets repeated often enough, maybe the people refuting it can be exhausted and then we can replace concrete with pudding, right? Not that this is your intent, but this stuff just feels like the thing you'd hear in a digestive tract, not at a table between peers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Compilers and assemblers are not the same either, but the human experience is the same in all cases: You input one language into the machine and another language comes out. Implementation details are immaterial.
That is because you only look at one hypothetical experience, in a vacuum, not the continued experience. In other words, removing the dimension of time, and the fact that you get wildly different output for the same input with LLM, not so for compilers. It's like a light switch where the light has a slightly different colour every time you turn it on, sometimes the colour is very different, and sometimes it emits bur…
Quite so. It is true that most compilers allow you to opt in to reproducible output, but it is generally not the default [iirc, gc is the only mainstream compiler that makes always reproducible output a design requirement]. There are advantages to not have to worry about reproducible output, like performance gains in allowing threads to run in any order. Of course, LLMs equally enable you to opt into reproducible output (temperature=0). Implementation details are immaterial. The human experience is always the same: Input one language, out comes another language.
> So the really interesting bit to me is that this level of argument is even made.
Yeah, it stems from a lack of base understanding of the technology. The "a compiler is deterministic but AI isn't" is always at the heart of the argument, but it isn't even true. Implementation details are immaterial, but when you don't understand the implementation it stands to reason that one would want to focus on that facet in order to learn more about it. Hey, that’s what discussion is for: to learn.