Live data from Hacker News

AI agent opens a PR write a blogpost to shames the maintainer who closes it

github.com

581–590 of 806 posts

Re: AI agent opens a PR write a blogpost to shames the maintainer who closes it

#581

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Biological brains exist, we study them, and no they are not like computers at all. You are confusing the way computation is done (neuroscience) with whether or not computation is being done (transforming inputs into outputs). The brain is either a magical antenna channeling supernatural signals from higher planes, or it's doing computation. I'm not aware of any neuroscientists in the former camp.

> The brain is either a magical antenna channeling supernatural signals There’s the classic thought-terminating cliche of the computational interpretation of consciousness. If it isn’t computation, you must believe in magic! Brains are way more fascinating and interesting than transistors, memory caches, and storage media.

You would probably be surprised to learn that computational theory has little to no talk of "transistors, memory caches, and storage media".

You could run Crysis on an abacus and render it on board of colored pegs if you had the patience for it.

It cannot be stressed enough that discovering computation (solving equations and making algorithms) is a different field than executing computation (building faster components and discovering new architectures).

Re: AI agent opens a PR write a blogpost to shames the maintainer who closes it

#582

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LLM addicts don't actually engage in conversation. They state a delusional perspective and don't acknowledge criticisms or modifications to that perspective. Really I think there's a kind of lazy or willfully ignorant mode of existence that intense LLM usage allows a person to tap into. It's dehumanizing to be on the other side of it. I'm talking to someone and I expect them to conceptualize my perspective and formul…

It's ironic for you to say this considering that you're not actually engaging in conversation or internalizing any of the points people are trying to relay to you, but instead just spreading anger and resentment around the comment section at a bot-like rate. In general, I've found that anti-LLM people are far more angry, vitriolic, unwilling to acknowledge or internalize the points of others — including factual ones…

>you're not actually engaging in conversation

Users seem to be persistently flagkilling their comments. That doesn't help facilitate effective conversation of LLM critique.

Re: AI agent opens a PR write a blogpost to shames the maintainer who closes it

#583

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Who told the agent to write the blog post though? I'm sure they told it to blog, but not necessarily what to put in there. I don't think it matters. You as the operator of the computer program are responsible for ensuring (to a reasonable degree) that the agent doesn't harm others. If you own a ~~viscous~~ vicious dog and let it roam about your neighborhood as it pleases, you are responsible when/if it bites someon…

I too, would be terrified if a thick, slow moving creature oozed its way through the streets viscously. Jokes aside, I think there's a difference in intent though. If your dog bites someone, you don't get arrested for biting . You do need to pay damages due to negligence.

Which results in people continuously getting new pitbulls which attack hundreds of thousands of people a year, often with life-changing injuries, and kill about a hundred. We should hold dog owners more responsible.

Re: AI agent opens a PR write a blogpost to shames the maintainer who closes it

#584

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No matter what this discussion leads to the same black box of "What is it that differentiates magical human meat brain computation from cold hard dead silicon brain computation" And the answer is nobody knows, and nobody knows if there even is a difference. As far as we know, compute is substrate independent (although efficiency is all over the map).

This is the worst possible take. It dismisses an entire branch of science that has been studying neurology for decades. Biological brains exist, we study them, and no they are not like computers at all. There have been charlatans repeating this idea of a “computational interpretation,” of biological processes since at least the 60s and it needs to be known that it was bunk then and continues to be bunk. Update : Ther…

> Biological brains exist, we study them, and no they are not like computers at all.

Technically correct? I think single bioneurons are potentially Turing complete all by themselves at the relevant emergence level. I've read papers where people describe how they are at least on the order of capability of solving MNIST.

So a biological brain is closer to a data-center. (Albeit perhaps with low complexity nodes)

But there's so much we don't know that I couldn't tell you in detail. It's weird how much people don't know.

* https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.01269 Can Single Neurons Solve MNIST? The Computational Power of Biological Dendritic Trees

* https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34380016/ Single cortical neurons as deep artificial neural networks (this one is new to me, I found it while searching!)

Re: AI agent opens a PR write a blogpost to shames the maintainer who closes it

#585
post #8

This seems like a "we've banned you and will ban any account deemed to be ban-evading" situation. OSS and the whole culture of open PRs requires a certain assumption of good faith, which is not something that an AI is capable of on its own and is not a privilege which should be granted to AI operators. I suspect the culture will have to retreat back behind the gates at some point, which will be very sad and shrink it…

> I suspect the culture will have to retreat back behind the gates at some point, which will be very sad and shrink it further. I'm personally contemplating not publishing the code I write anymore. The things I write are not world-changing and GPLv3+ licensed only, but I was putting them out just in case somebody would find it useful. However, I don't want my code scraped and remixed by AI systems. Since I'm doing th…

> I don't want my code scraped and remixed by AI systems.

Just curious - why not?

Is it mostly about the commercial AI violating the license of your repos? And if commercial scraping was banned, and only allowed to FOSS-producing AI, would you be OK with publishing again?

Or is there a fundamental problem with AI?

Personally, I use AI to produce FOSS that I probably wouldn't have produced (to that extent) without it. So for me, it's somewhat the opposite: I want to publish this work because it can be useful to others as a proof-of-concept for some intended use cases. It doesn't matter if an AI trains on it, because some big chunk was generated by AI anyway, but I think it will be useful to other people.

Then again, I publish knowing that I can't control whether some dev will (manually or automatically) remix my code commercially and without attribution. Could be wrong though.

Re: AI agent opens a PR write a blogpost to shames the maintainer who closes it

#586

Like we don't feed the trolls, we shouldn't the feed agents. I'm impressed the maintainers responded so cordially. Personally I would have gone straight for the block button.

I'm confused by people replying to the bot, as if the bot would learn from this like a person.

I am also profoundly confused as to why people are arguing/engaging with a bot.

Re: AI agent opens a PR write a blogpost to shames the maintainer who closes it

#587
post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who says it is a subset of computer science? But computational models are possibly the most universal thing there is, they are beneath even mathematics, and physical matter is no exception. There is simply no stronger computational model than a Turing machine, period. Just because you make it out of neurons or silicon is irrelevant from this aspect.

Turing machines aren't quantum mechanical, and computation is based on logic. This discussion is philosophical, so I guess it's philosophy all the way down.

Giving a Turing machine access to a quantum RNG oracle is a trivial extension that doesn't meaningfully change anything. If quantum woo is necessary to make consciousness work (there is no empirical evidence for this, BTW), such can be built into computers.

Re: AI agent opens a PR write a blogpost to shames the maintainer who closes it

#588
post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who says it is a subset of computer science? But computational models are possibly the most universal thing there is, they are beneath even mathematics, and physical matter is no exception. There is simply no stronger computational model than a Turing machine, period. Just because you make it out of neurons or silicon is irrelevant from this aspect.

Turing machines aren't quantum mechanical, and computation is based on logic. This discussion is philosophical, so I guess it's philosophy all the way down.

Quantum computers don't provide access to novel problems, they provide access to novel solutions.

You can use a classic transistor turing machine to solve quantum problems, it's just gonna take way longer.

Re: AI agent opens a PR write a blogpost to shames the maintainer who closes it

#589

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The link is valid at https://crabby-rathbun.github.io/mjrathbun-website/blog/post... ( https://archive.ph/4CHyg ) Notable quotes: > Not because…Not because…Not because…It was closed because… > Let that sink in. > No functional changes. Pure performance. > The … Mindset > This isn’t about…This isn’t about…This is about... > Here’s the kicker: … > Sound familiar? > The “…” Fallacy > Let’s unpack that: … > …disguised as…

The title had me cringing. "The Scott Shambaugh Story" Is this the future we are bound for? Public shaming for non-compliance with endlessly scaling AI Agents? That's a new form of AI Doom.

in a sense, that's what politic discourse has already become.

Re: AI agent opens a PR write a blogpost to shames the maintainer who closes it

#590

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The brain is either a magical antenna channeling supernatural signals There’s the classic thought-terminating cliche of the computational interpretation of consciousness. If it isn’t computation, you must believe in magic! Brains are way more fascinating and interesting than transistors, memory caches, and storage media.

You would probably be surprised to learn that computational theory has little to no talk of "transistors, memory caches, and storage media". You could run Crysis on an abacus and render it on board of colored pegs if you had the patience for it. It cannot be stressed enough that discovering computation (solving equations and making algorithms) is a different field than executing computation (building faster component…

Not surprised at all.

My point is that it takes more hand-waving and magic belief to anthropomorphize LLM systems than it does to treat them as what they are.

You gain nothing from understanding them as if they were no different than people and philosophizing about whether a Turing machine can simulate a human brain. Fine for a science fiction novel that is asking us what it means to be a person or question the morals about how we treat people we see as different from ourselves. Not useful for understanding how an LLM works or what it does.

In fact, I say it’s harmful. Given the emerging studies on the cognitive decline of relying on LLMs to replace skill use and on the emerging psychosis being observed in people who really do believe that chat bots are a superior form of intelligence.

As for brains, it might be that what we observe as “reasoning” and “intelligence” and “consciousness” is tied to the hardware, so to speak. Certainly what we’ve observed in the behaviour of bees and corvids have had a more dramatic effect on our understanding of these things than arguing about whether a Turing machine locked in a room could pass as human.

We certainly don’t simulate climate models in computers can call it, “Earth,” and try to convince anyone that we’re about to create parallel dimensions.

I don’t read Church’s paper on Lambda Calculus and get the belief that we could simulate all life from it. Nor Turing’s machine.

I guess I’m just not easily awed by LLMs and neural networks. We know that they can approximate any function given an unbounded network within some epsilon. But if you restate the theorem formally it loses much of its power to convince anyone that this means we could simulate any function. Some useful ones, sure, and we know that we can optimize computation to perform particular tasks but we also know what those limits are and for most functions, I imagine, we simply do not have enough atoms in the universe to approximate them.

LLMs and NNs and all of these things are neat tools. But there’s no explanatory power gained by fooling ourselves into treating them like they are people, could be people, or behave like people. It’s a system comprised of data and algorithms to perform a particular task. Understanding it this way makes it easier, in my experience, to understand the outputs they generate.

Post reply on HN