AI should elevate your thinking, not replace it

That link I posted upthread, the "developer" did not read the docs "because the LLM wrote the code" and hence did not realise that the token they had was a full access token, not a limited access token.

You're now boasting that you also don't have to read the docs because the LLM wrote the code?

I mean, it's literally the cause of their irreversible production deletion, in a link that you replied to, and you state you do the same?

The problem is that it's impossible. Even if you could directly copy experience from one mind to the other, that experience would be ungrounded. Experience is just as subjective as any expression: that's why we need science.

> through the culture war (nobody can define "man" or "woman" any more, sometimes the word "man" is used to refer to a "woman," etc).

That's a pretty mean rejection of empathy you've got going on there. People are doing their best to describe their genuine experiences, yet the only interpretations you have bothered to subject their expression to are completely irrelevant to them. Maybe this is a good opportunity to explore a different perspective.

> LLMs just accelerate this process of severing any connection whatsoever between signified and signifier.

That's my entire point. There was never any connection to begin with. The sign can only point to the signified. The signified does not actually interact with any semantics. True objectivity can only apply to the signified: never the sign. Even mathematics leverage an arbitrary canonical grammar to model the reality of abstractions. The semantics are grounded in objectively true axioms, but the aesthetics are grounded in an arbitrary choice of symbols and grammar.

The words aren't our problem. The problem is relevance. If we want to communicate effectively, we must find common ground, so that our intentions can be relevant to each others' interpretations. In other words, we must leverage empathy. My goal is to partially automate empathy with computation.

Traditionally, we use definition as the core primitive for programming. The programming language grammar defines the meaning of every possible expression, precisely and exhaustively. This is useful, because intention and interpretation are perfectly matched, making the system predictable. This is the perspective of objectivity.

The problem with objectivity is that it is categorically limited. A programming language compiler can only interpret using the predetermined rules of its grammar. The only abstract concepts that can be expressed are the ones that are implemented as programming language features. Ambiguity is unspeakable.

The other problem is that it is tautologically stagnant. The interpretation that you are going to use has already been completely defined. The programming language grammar is its own fundamental axiom: a tautology that dictates how every interpretation will be grounded. You can't choose a different axiom. Every programming language is its own silo of expression, forever incompatible with the rest. Sure, we have workarounds, like FFIs or APIs, but none of them can solve the root issue.

A subjective perspective would allow us to write and interpret ambiguous expression, which could be leveraged to (weakly) solve natural language processing. It would also allow us to change where our interpretations are grounded. That would (weakly) solve incompatibility. Instead of refactoring the expression, you would compose a new interpreter.

Because code is data, we can objectify our interpreters. We can apply logical deduction to choose the most relevant one, like a type system chooses the right polymorphic function. We can also compose interpreters like combinators, and decompose them by expressing their intentions. This way, we could have an elegant recursive self-referential system that generates relevant interpreters.

Any adequately described algorithm or data structure could be implemented to be perfectly compatible with any adequately interpreted system, all wrapped in whatever aesthetics the user chooses. On the fly. That's the dream, anyway.