I've been working like, almost this exact idea! https://github.com/hale-lang/papers/tree/main . The same capacity allocation bound algorithm appears naturally not only in human and llm/agent congnition, but in many natural systems as well.
I think that's where it goes, yes. The ability to model the world internally predates spoken language. We (and other animals) already translate what we _sense_ into that internal model. Language is just another translation; all communication is bidirectional translation, internal modeling/thought is wordless.
I've written my own programming language. IMO, "good architecture" exists outside of specific language choices - SOLID, various design patterns, etc.. I've always felt like I'm implementing the same high level design in any language I've worked with, it's just manifested and looked different, depending on the language tooling. The "good" opinions are baked into the _structure_ of the language itself, so the robots have no choice but to build well designed codebases.
As a codebase grows, divergent structural emergence from incidental(lang and lib) details results in prolonged complexity costs. I'm working on a language that enforces structure for agents: https://github.com/hale-lang/hale
You’d be well served to stop the political name calling, it’s childish.
I view the dynamic from the opposite direction. You might think that that the EU is starting to view America the same way it views china, but in actuality the EU is starting to behave more like China. The wheels of a great firewall for the EU have been turning for some time already.
We can have a more detailed discussion around political alignments in America, but you've already agreed that your original statement was false. I mention the 30% figure specifically because you said "nearly 50% of Americans voted for donald trump".
American companies "complying" with is only required insofar as the EU authorities can do anything about it - and that's the same dynamic that exists across all geo boundaries on the internet, that's not specifically American - see China and its great firewall. If an American company is taking steps to be in compliance with GDPR, it's because there is benefit in doing so.
WRT GDPR, I'd ask a clarification before continuing - you said "operating within the EU" - what does that mean? If I deploy a website, from America, onto American servers, and you can reach them from within the EU, am I "operating within the EU"? I'm not trying to be coy by asking this, I actually don't know the extent to which I agree or disagree with you.
Maybe 30% of Americans voted for Donald Trump. This response reeks of ignorance and hubris.
> Do you genuinely believe you are superior to the rest of the world?
This assertion wasn't made, in any way, by the person you're replying to, and it sounds as though it's being asked in anger. This entire conversation has been about data privacy and stewardship. The OP has pointed out, correctly, that there's nothing that has prevented a EU based professional social network from existing in a way that is satisfying for EU based data policy.
If you sign up on an American website, you've decided to do business with Americans in America. Why are you entitled to something that the people you are doing business with are not subject to?
> My theory is that this is a source of diverging views on LLMs for programming: people who see programming languages as tools for thought compared to people who see programming languages as, exclusively, tools to make computers do stuff. It's no surprise that the former would see more value in programming qua programming, while the latter are happy to sweep code under the rug.
i'd postulate this: most people see llms as tools for thought. programmers also see llms as tools for programming. some programmers, right now, are getting very good at both, and are binding the two together.
> If you want to make an argument that some groups of people are inherently evil and subhuman and must be destroyed, just go ahead and make it.
This is an absurdly bad faith interpretation of what I've said. You and I agree on the conflict in Gaza. The only opinion that I've offered is that terrorism isn't an acceptable response from a third party.
If you agree that there is too much collateral suffering in Gaza, but you're happy with a course of action that is deliberately inflicting more collateral suffering, then you're a moral hypocrite.
> If you think the vast majority of humanity is engaged in passively or actively allowing a second wrong, is the 4% justified in using violence to stop the second wrong while providing critical military, economic, and political assistance for the first one?
Easy - I don't think that, so it's not justified. The opinions of "the vast majority of humanity" are not part of the decision making process that has resulted in this situation.
> I wonder if it's possible to describe this as a series of logical axioms
I don't wonder, I believe it is! These are the (simplified) axioms along which I form my opinions about not only this, but all geopolitics in general:
- Actions that cause human suffering are bad.
- Actions that reduce human suffering are good.
- Innocent suffering in a conflict is inevitable.
- Force will be required; conflict is inevitable; the world is imperfect.
- The use of force is righteous or not depending on how the resultant innocent suffering is accounted for before, during, and after.
I believe that my opinion is completely consistent with these statements. You asked if using violence to stop other violence is wrong, and my answer is "it depends". If the Houthis were taking action against the those actually committing the atrocities, we'd probably not be having this conversation. Deliberately causing harm to innocents is never acceptable, never right. This is terrorism as a tactic.
If you think that second order violence IS an acceptable course of action, where do you draw the line? How much societal disruption in countries with less food security are we willing to induce?
> If the US strong armed Israel into a cease fire and to open the blockade on Gaza, two things the US could do if it had the political will, this would stop the Houthi's from attacking ships in the Red Sea.
This is advocating that two wrongs can make a right, which I fully reject. The degree to which the human suffering happening in Gaza should be stopped is in NO WAY impacted by more malicious harm being caused to other groups. It only creates a situation in which multiple actors are causing harm to innocents - two situations that need to stop.
> They claim to be fighting against nations supporting the genocide.
Do countries in Africa support the genocide because they import grain shipments from America in order to have a food supply?
Not going to engage in a discussion about valuing human lives, but what are you suggesting? The attacks on ships should be allowed to continue because the conflict?
I was pretty young when I was taught that two wrongs don't make a right.
If you read through the decision, the reasoning is all there, it's absolutely rational. What's _not_ rational is preferring personal anecdotal experience over the aggregate analysis.