Live data from Hacker News

What is Realtalk’s relationship to AI? (2024)

dynamicland.org

1–10 of 98 posts

Re: What is Realtalk’s relationship to AI? (2024)

#4
> we aim for a computing system that is fully visible and understandable top-to-bottom

I mean even for something that is in theory fully understandable like the linux kernel it is not feasible to actually read the source before using it.

To me this really makes no sense. Even for traditional programming we only have so powerful systems because we use a layered approach. You can look into these layers and understand them but it is totally out of scope for a single human being.

Re: What is Realtalk’s relationship to AI? (2024)

#5
I'm sympathetic, but I do think Realtalk could be improved with some simple object recognition and LLMing.

One of the challenges I found when I played with RealTalk is interoperability. The aim is to use the "spacial layer" to bootstrap people's intuitions on how programs should work, and interact with the world. It's really cool when this works. But key intuitions about how things interact when combined with each other, only work if the objects have been programmed to be compatible. A balloon wants to "pop if it comes into contact with anything sharp". A cactus wants to say "I am sharp". But if someone else has programmed a needle card to say "I am pointy", then it won't interact with the balloon in a satisfying way. Or, to use one of Dynamicland's favorite examples: say I have an interactive chart which shows populations of different countries when I place the "Mexico card" into the filter spot. What do you think should happen if I put a card showing the Mexican flag in that same spot, or some other card which just says the string "Mexico" on it? Wouldn't it be better if their interaction "just works"?

Visual LLMs can aid with this. Even a thin layer which can assign tags or answer binary questions about objects could be used to make programs massively more interoperable.

Re: What is Realtalk’s relationship to AI? (2024)

#7

> we aim for a computing system that is fully visible and understandable top-to-bottom I mean even for something that is in theory fully understandable like the linux kernel it is not feasible to actually read the source before using it. To me this really makes no sense. Even for traditional programming we only have so powerful systems because we use a layered approach. You can look into these layers and understand t…

That’s because you’re conflating “understanding” with “comprehension”. You can understand every component in a chain and its function, how it works, where its fragilities lay or capabilities are absent, without reviewing the source code for everything you install. To comprehend, however, you must be intimately familiar with the underlying source code, how it compiles, how it speaks to the hardware, etc.

I believe this is the crux of what the author is getting at: LLMs are, by their very nature, a black box that cannot ever be understood. You will never understand how an LLM reached its output, because their innate design prohibits that possibility from ever manifesting. These are token prediction machines whose underlying logic would take mathematicians decades to reverse engineer even a single query, by design.

I believe that’s what the author was getting at. As we can never understand LLMs in how they reached their output, we cannot rely on them as trustworthy agents of compute or knowledge. Just like we would not trust a human who gives a correct answer much of the time but can never explain how they knew that answer or how they reached that conclusion, so should we not trust LLMs in that same capacity.

Re: What is Realtalk’s relationship to AI? (2024)

#8
post #3

thanks for sharing this, seems like a very idealistic project, had not heard of Bret nor dynamicland before.

Highly recommend one of the most memorable talks I've ever seen...

Inventing on Principle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUv66718DII

Re: What is Realtalk’s relationship to AI? (2024)

#9
post #3

thanks for sharing this, seems like a very idealistic project, had not heard of Bret nor dynamicland before.

"Stop drawing dead fish" by Bret has stuck with me for a decade – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfytHvgHybA

Very much worth the watch if you haven't seen this one before.

Re: What is Realtalk’s relationship to AI? (2024)

#10

> we aim for a computing system that is fully visible and understandable top-to-bottom I mean even for something that is in theory fully understandable like the linux kernel it is not feasible to actually read the source before using it. To me this really makes no sense. Even for traditional programming we only have so powerful systems because we use a layered approach. You can look into these layers and understand t…

There's a fundamental difference between systems that are theoretically comprehensible but practically large (Linux) versus systems whose internal reasoning is inherently opaque by design (modern neural networks).
Post reply on HN