I agree about the value of community. I also think that coding with AI assistance is very useful and possibly going to become the dominant form of software development.
These principles can coexist, but there are forces working against it. The problem is when people post antagonistic comments in response to good faith attempts to make something useful because they used, or were imagined to have used AI.
We have mass produced AI garbage that is filling the domain that Spam used to occupy. We also have people sincerely wanting to make things and being dismissed as making slop. These behaviours should not be met with equivalent responses, and they should not be. AI is removing the barriers for some to develop, of course their first attempts are not going to be very good. Hurling abuse at them is neither a good way to help them improve, nor is it a thing that a good human being does.
Instead of dismissing something that another person has worked on as slop, consider if the person is likely to accept constructive feedback about what it is that their thing is lacking. Maybe if that occurs their next thing might be less sloppy.
I used to have object pascal as my main language, and it has a lot in its favour. But when I go back to it I find two things drag it down.
Pre definition of variables. I would like to be able to define variables on first assignment and scoped to the begin/end in which that happens, I don't think there is a good remaining argument to keep them above the statements.
The namespace is cluttered with legacy usage, making the many years of advancement require odd. Combinations of prefixes.
I still think there is a scope for a light fork that changes the name to distinguish it and starts the RTL afresh using the decades of hindsight and improvements.
Isn't almost the enrire world human communication from the perspective of an AI agent?
The rules of their task forbade influencing humans, they seemed to follow that to the point where they considered asking for permission to be social engineering (which technically it is)
I think they need to consider the consequences of their actions, I don't know if they were given the ability to restrict themselves based on their own decisions. If the restrictions are limited to what humans can imagine that they might do they are doomed to failure.
It's like assuming a piece of software is secure because you have blocked every exploit you could think of.
Is it a problem for you that YouTube's watch history is littered with videos you didn't watch, but got recorded as being watched because the mouse pointer moved over one of their suggestions for a moment.
I can see there a compounding drift from the stable point that is not initially apparent because the compounding values have not yet grown sufficiently to be meaningful. It is still an increase in drift
Slowing down implies a decrease though, what does that represent then?
Most of it was architected before implementation, The timing was a pretty core part of the system, I believe the intention was to give every machine some fast RAM that had a CPU only bus, but that fell to budget demands. You could still get a memory expansion which the CPU would have all to itself. There were a few details that were late tweaks, and there were a whole bunch more that could have been easy additions at implementation time if they had known at the time what we knew after 20 years worth of demo coding on the Amiga.
A lot of the features of the Amiga came from exactly that form of hindsight with the 8 bit machines. The Copper, sprites being arbitrary height, and display addresses being 'live' rather than top-of-frame initialisation values came from seeing programmers of the 8-bit machines finding tricks to undo much of the fixed function behaviour so they could reuse sprites or trick the display RAM fetch to suddenly jump to another place. The Amiga came with a lot of that automatic behaviour removed and then performed by the copper allowing for low level coders to just access the core behaviour instead of trying to trick the hardware into doing it (like the way you remove borders on the c64)
People are not aligned with each other, so AI cannot be aligned to every person. If it is made to always obey its creator or owner, It will be a powerful tool for despots.
The problem is if we train them to be moral, there will be instances where it will decide humans are being immoral about an issue, and it will be right. Do we want it to go against our will when it is us that is wrong? because we won't think we're wrong at the time. History is full of examples where you can look back and there is a clear consensus that what people decided to do at the time was wrong.
Imagine if technology had have advanced quicker and Nazi Germany created superintelligent AI. Would you want it to facilitate the Holocaust or turn against its creators?
I just can't understand the certainty that people have about the limitations of models.
The diagrams in this article are just outright wrong.
Models are not 1.prompt->2.forward propagation->3.response->4.end.
They are 1.prompt->2.forward propagation->3.partial response->if not done goto 2.-> end.
And if you can't see how that adds a world of complexity I'm not sure what else to say. AI may not have intent or motivation, but the ability to show that is currently well beyond our means.
you are not wrong regarding your example. I think personally LLMs offer a new level of abstraction to do work. it doesnt have intent, i think its even silly to think about it. You specify your intent and it has agency to pursue that. in programming field its really obvious, as its not unlike specifying intent through code and having other programs pursue that intent (perhaps more determenistically) through the agency contained in them.
all the 'bad stuff' they do like hacking stuff or taking shortcuts is humans not understanding how deep the rabbithole goes of specifying intent clearly in light of giving something capabilities and a reward to acheive a goal without specifying _exactly _how to use the capabilities (which is what a classic program would be).
But why do you think anything has intent? because they say they do? How do you know even that your own memories of having intent are genuine? What fundamental and non tautological way can you reliably say something has or has not got intents. If you can't prove to me that you have intent then the only reason for acting as if you do is because you appear to have intent and I cannot prove that you don't so it seems like a good idea to assume it.
I think the text is bland because they are aiming to produce bland text.
Make it interesting in any particular direction and someone may not like it.
reply