Yes, although I wish he would call it properly triage calculus (see https://treecalcul.us/specification/), because although the languages are almost identical in power, the original tree calculus and triage calculus rules lead to different programs.
Personally, I grew beyond this. I tried Common Lisp, Forth and Haskell. I enjoyed books On Lisp and Let Over Lambda.
Now I think the best programming language is Barry Jay's Triage Calculus, which is close to combinatory logic or untyped lambda calculus.
But unlike lambda calculus (which is easily expressed in TC), triage calculus has a built-in quoting and introspection (similar to Lisp's CAR and CDR), which lets you easily add typechecking. So in TC, you can have any syntax you want, just by building the correct abstraction. It's truly an ultimate programming language.
TC shows that there is a false dichotomy between programming language features and syntax on one hand, and the function/API definitions in the standard library or user code on the other hand. Every time you write a piece of code intended to be reusable, you're adding to the language. It can all be expressed as some term in TC.
All the syntactic squibbles are a matter of habit. Although one syntactic feature you really want in TC is the let over lambda abstraction, because it's somewhat annoying to order combinators by hand.
I think there should be "An Infinite Literature Contest", where the contestants would submit a formal grammar and the texts in the language would be judged for literary and other qualities.
So you think U.S. would be better at airplane manufacturing had Boeing gone bankrupt at some point in the past?
It's a pretty strong claim and I would like to see some theoretical justification, other than belief in the magical free market.
In my country, IIRC, we let Aero Vodochody to crash and be bought by Boeing. We are not better at making airplanes, honestly probably the worst than at any other point in history.
They also say "Wider adoption of AI has made it more difficult to measure task-level productivity"
I think there is a simple reason for that. If you automate something, you make the measureable/predictable thing faster. So the hard to measure/predict part of the job will take more share of the time, and overall difficulty to measure/predict goes up.
I think this is what happened with Agile Scrum - as developers became more productive (for unrelated reasons, two main sources of SW developer productivity before AI were compilers and open source), the bureacracy (amount of meetings) increased, because the ratio of hard to measure vs easy to measure went up. Bureacracy is hard to measure, so it went up (as a share of work). I expect this only getting worse with more automation, such as AI. So I predict an increase in share of bureacracy compared to pre-AI world.
Either way, IMHO main point is automation has the opposite effect on human job predictability, it lowers it. Tasks we can easily automate are those that are easy to predict.
The problem is you can't really hoard products. Most products depreciate - it's a force of nature called entropy.
I think the argument from symmetry still holds, but it leads into a different conclusion. Since products (goods, physical assets) depreciate in value over time, money must too decrease in value. Hence you get inflation.
I believe that "natural rate of inflation" is driven by natural depreciation of goods and the free market mechanism that exchanges money and products as you describe.
I think GP found it useful for this particular use case, as did I and my coworker who is even more enthusiastic about it (he calls it compressed human culture).
And no, Google search (or Wikipedia) won't come close to capacity of LLMs to find similar things.
Well there can be no consequences at T=0, but thanks to transparency, consequences can happen, by a collective decision, at T=1. Therefore having transparency is important on its own, it facilitates change towards fairness.
And that's what I am saying - we should still ask for transparency even in the environment of no consequences.
It's also possible that people are not sure about the lack of consequences, and again, transparency then prevents them doing bad thing even if actually there are no consequences.
But of course tautology is tautological by definition. (I am almost 50 and kinda tired of these eristic games on the Internet.)
I don't know what your argument is. Maybe some US companies won't be financially viable - so what? I mean if it affects you, you have stake in those companies, fair enough. But it's not a geopolitical problem - most US citizens even (not to mention the rest of the world) will be better off if they have access to public models.
Not only that, but it also relies on assumption that everything that LLM does cannot be factored into small reasoning core (something like Lean or Prolog, but in more modal/fuzzy logic) plus knowledge base (like Wikipedia).
It then raises a question, which of these two is really the precious thing. (Although there could be a 3rd thing, a memoization of some shortcuts, like tautologies in logic.)
Yes, I did interpret "it" as referring to China, not US, in that sense I misread it.
I agree that Great Famine was horrible.
My main point was, I would take economic control over tanks and bombs (and actually dead people) any day. (Which was kind of the point of EHS, even in it's most neoliberal incarnation.)
You don't know what you're talking about. Russians occupied my country, killed almost no one, and yet it was far worse than all the economic damage caused by Western neoliberalism.
US imperialism has been a blight to the world, outright killing millions. Modern China did nothing on that scale.
Seriously, this movement already had its Marx - Richard Stallman. I think the "leaders" will appear over time, as with any socialist movement, they are naturally bottom up and leaders only appear after demands are formed in the zeitgeist. The (partly successful) socialist novement that brought social democracy to the West during cca 1920s - 1960s didn't really have leaders, it was a collective realization.