zoogeny

no profile record

Submissions

The Building Block Economy

1 pointsby zoogeny3개월 전0 comments

comments

16일 전discuss

It would be nice if there was a listing of exactly what was included somewhere.

19일 전discuss

I am very ambivalent on this post. On one hand, I agree that excessive defensiveness stinks up a code base. On the other, I am a huge fan of local reasoning. Especially in the world of LLMs, I don't want to rely on my, my teammate's or my LLM agent's ability to know every single code path that results in `Allow` begin called.

Of course, this really comes down to the type system and the fact that non-nullable pointers are missing.

The one definite thing I would say, swallowing the error and just trying to do a reasonable thing is the most wrong thing here. At the least, there ought to be an ERROR log, even if one was trying to be defensive against outright panics.

21일 전discuss

On my first run I aced all of the sections until the last and then I got some really weird ones (e.g. zenzizenzizenzic). When I ran it again I got 95% new words and I fumbled a couple in the earlier rounds but did a bit better on the final section.

No cheating, only one or two guesses both rounds in the final section. No idea how the scoring works.

21일 전discuss

I ran through it twice, first time 91 second time 90, score: 69,500. Midwit confirmed.

21일 전discuss

[dead]

21일 전discuss

I'm not following your logic here. Are you basing your predictions on the predictions of CEOs?

If I understand you correctly you are saying, CEOs predicted X and they were wrong. Now CEOs are predicting Y, and since they were wrong about X you predict they are also wrong about Y.

But Y's success seems independent of other people's ability to predict X?

21일 전discuss

I believe that the statement `a.x = 100;` is invalid since Record types are immutable.

That is, the situation you are afraid of should be impossible.

22일 전discuss

I think I mostly got this, but just to test it, it would be like in Typescript where I might say:

    type Foo = { x: number; }
    type Bar = { x: number; y: number }
    type FooBar = Foo | Bar;
    function baz(x: FooBar) {
      if ('y' in x) {
        // compiler now knows x is a Bar
      }
    }

In this case, the variable `x` has a property that is determined by the compiler based on control flow. i.e. it isn't explicitly carried by the type of `x`.

22일 전discuss

> More generally than just Java, nullability is often a property not of a type but of a variable.

This is a tangent, but I'm not sure I follow this. Can you give an example to make this clear?

22일 전discuss

> Stoicism in Ancient Rome was COMPLETELY about controlling your emotions,

This is so false it deserves comment. For example, the SEP for Stoicism [1]. You'll notice that the first entire two sections are Physical Theory and Logic. Ethics comes later and it isn't until 4.3 (after Telos and Virtue) that you get to indifference. From the intro:

"Stoic philosophy was, from Zeno onwards, conceived of as comprising three parts: physics (phusikê), logic (logikê), and ethics (êthikê)."

I think you are over-indexing on one work by one Stoic. There is much, much more to actual Stoicism than "controlling your emotions".

1. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/stoicism/

26일 전discuss

> Unless you break the hypothetical by adding some alternative option C

That is kind of the point, isn't it? That my hypothetical scenario isn't realistic.

Let's imagine two worlds. A world where individuals refuse the false dichotomy and search for option C. And the world where someone accepts the false dichotomy and justifies evil.

I would argue that anyone that advocates for the justification of evil is actually using motivated reasoning. It breaks my original premise "Company A founds itself on doing 0 harm to Area X". Clearly they didn't and their embracing of evil shows that their principles mean nothing.

As a moral test, ask yourself: If I said "you must kill 99 people otherwise I will kill 100", would you feel morally justified to kill those 99 people? If your answer is "yes", then you are manipulable by those who want you to commit evil on their behalf. They don't have to commit any murders, just convince you that you have no other choice.

26일 전discuss

I think the big lesson of this that hasn't yet been learned: it literally doesn't matter how moral Amodei or anyone else is at Anthropic. When push comes to shove, the US government can step in and take it away.

They will either play ball with the US government on the US government's terms or they will be replaced or destroyed.

It is a misconception for them to believe they can dictate the terms of this technology.

29일 전discuss

Credit where credit is due I suppose. I'm still concerned over the direction this is going but at least Anthropic is listening.

지난달discuss

I think we are very disconnected on the topic of conversation here. Somehow you've confabulated my point with an attack on the prisoners dilemma or races to the bottom?

The person I was responding to made the point that if you want to minimize evil in the world, sometimes you have to add evil to a lesser degree. As in my example, if I do 9 points of evil but prevent 10 points of evil then according to OP I've added value to the world in the form of the 1 point of evil I have reduced.

I responded that this can lead to an escalation trap. This assumes that we would all prefer less evil in the world, right? So how do we get out of the escalation trap? Repeated application of the maxim "always do a bit less evil than the worst possible competitor" will not lead to a minimization of evil overall, only a creeping increase in the total amount of evil in the world.

How are you equating this to me arguing against the existence of races to the bottom?

지난달discuss

We have 10,000+ years of human civilization at this point. There must be some other active ethical maxim operating other than "choose the lesser of two evils" to explain why there is so much cooperation amongst humans. Evidence is not on the side of the preeminence of races to the bottom.

You should investigate the repeated prisoners dilemma.

지난달discuss

That's a bit like asking how the defendant in a legal case is an interested party.

Even if you think someone is guilty, it does make sense to allow them to at least submit their defense. And if they choose to use that time to advocate for their own promotion, let them.

지난달discuss

Your logic doesn't hold up well to simple escalation logic.

Company A founds itself on doing 0 harm to Area X. Competitor B shows up and starts finding success doing 10 harm to Area X, so Company A makes a "moral" decision: If we do 9 harm to Area X, we are preventing 1 entire harm. Isn't that real value? then Company C shows up and starts finding success doing 100 harm to Area X, so Company A changes it's moral stance to "unless we do 99 harm to Area X ..."

I know an old lady who swallowed a fly kind of logic going on here.

지난달discuss

Totally understand on managing context length. But in a sense, the work is just providing the library of primary texts (and given the public domain nature of these kinds of works, that seems both ethical and legal) and some mechanism to include them into the context as desired by the user.

As an example user story, maybe I want to get Plato's reaction to Buddha. It might be convenient to have a library of sutra's that I could grab extracts from in order to send to the instructed model for further reflection. That puts the context management into the users hands. From a UI perspective you would need a library interface, the ability to select extracts, some indication of context available vs. context used, etc.

지난달discuss

Imagine you are in the shower one day and you come up with the sketch of a possible innovation on model architecture, however there are some fine details and tricky implementations that you need to do in order to test it out. So you fire up Claude Code and describe your idea and ask it to provide some reflection on the idea and work out some proof-of-concept code.

In this scenario, this is your idea. You aren't "training off of other closed frontier models" in a distillation sense. This is your insight, your idea, possibly gained from reading a lot of papers and built on your own experience.

How do you feel if the model refuses? Do you consider the scenario I described a violation of someone else's rights?

지난달discuss

I accept your point, in the sense that I wouldn't suggest that they have any obligation to share their own research.

What seems to be different here, is that they are saying they won't let you use their tool to do your own research.

It is a subtle but important difference. They aren't saying "we have secret sauce we won't share", they seem to be saying "we will prevent the tool you are paying for from independently creating a competing idea".