pka · HackerTrans

5 месяцев назадdiscuss

> Do you keep trying to whack-a-mole the AI tools for this, or the humans actually making and distributing fake nudes of real people?

Both, obviously. For example, you go after drug distributors and drug producers. Both approaches are effective in different ways, I am not sure why you are having such trouble understanding this.

pka

5 месяцев назадdiscuss

> Arrows are slightly the wrong abstraction because they require an operation arr :: (a -> b) -> (a ~> b)—which requires you to be able to embed Haskell functions in your category, something which is almost never possible.

Yeah, this is such a shame. It would make arrows actually usable.

pka

7 месяцев назадdiscuss

Tangential, but to people who find this topic interesting I highly recommend the book What is Intelligence [0] by Blaise Agüera y Arcas that views life through the lens of mutating self replicating Turing machines.

In the book he also talks about GoF, but one of the fascinating experiments he did is that a "computronium" of initially random Brainfuck programs (that obviously don't do anything interesting in the beginning) that mutate (by flipping random bits) and merge (by taking two random programs and sticking them together) eventually, after a sudden phase transition, start to self replicate by producing gradually better copies of themselves!

He also argues that symbiogenesis (merging replicators into a whole that does more than its parts) is the main driving force of evolution instead of just random mutations, because the random Brainfuck computronium eventually produces replicators even without the random bit flips.

[0] https://whatisintelligence.antikythera.org

pka

8 месяцев назадdiscuss

Same!

pka

8 месяцев назадdiscuss

The topic was immutability, not Clojure?

But ok, if mutability is always worse, why not use a pure language then? No more cowardly swap! and transient data structures or sending messages back and forth like in Erlang.

But then you get to monads (otherwise you'd end up with Elm and I'd like to see Apple's payment backend written in Elm), monad transformers, arrows and the like and coincidentally that's when many Clojure programmers start whining about "jumping through unnecessary hoops" :D

Anyway, this was just a private observation I've reached after being an FP zealot for a decade, all is good, no need to convert me, Clojure is cool :)

pka

8 месяцев назадdiscuss

If there was a language that didn't require pure and impure code to look different but still tracked mutability at the type level like the ST monad (so you can't call an impure function from a pure one) - so not Clojure - then that'd be perfect.

But as it stands immutability often feels like jumping through unnecessary hoops for little gain really.

pka

8 месяцев назадdiscuss

> immutability in Clojure doesn't mean inefficiency.

You are still doing a gazillion allocations compared to:

  for (let i = 0; i < data.length; i++) { hist[data[i]]++; }

But apart from that the mutable code in many cases is just much clearer compared to something like your fold above. Sometimes it's genuinely easier to assemble a data structure "as you go" instead of from the "bottom up" as in FP.

pka

8 месяцев назадdiscuss

> Would you say that there was a single consciousness that both bodies shared, but that it suddenly split once the meteorite hit?

I agree, this is super weird. In a sense this seems to be the difference between viewing consciousness from the first person vs the third person. But until we understand how (if at all) matter generates felt experience the latter view can not, by definition, be about consciousness itself.

I guess this kind of perspective commits one to viewing first person experience in the way we understand abstract concepts - it is nonsensical to ask what the difference between this "1" here and that other "1" over there is. Well, you can say, they are at different positions and written in different materials etc, but those are not properties of the concept "1" anymore.

So yes, coming back to the thought experiment, one of the consequences of that would have to be that both bodies share the same consciousness and the moment something diverges the consciousnesses do too.

The point about time is interesting, and also directly related to AI. If at some point machines become conscious (leaving aside the question if that's possible at all and how we would know without solving the aforementioned hard problem), they would presumably have to generate quanta at discrete steps. But is that so strange? The nothingness in between would not be felt (kind of like going to sleep and waking up "the next moment").

But maybe this idea can be applied to dynamical continuous systems as well, like the brain.

(Btw this conversation was super interesting, thank you!)

pka

8 месяцев назадdiscuss

> I'm sensing redness here and now, so the sensation of redness exists very clearly tied to a particular point in spacetime. In what sense is the qualia of redness not firmly anchored in spacetime? Of course, you could talk about the concept redness, like the concept Pi, but even then, these concepts exist in the mind of a human thinking about them, still tied to a particular location in spacetime.

But qualia are inherently subjective. You can correlate brain activity (which exists at a position in spacetime) to subjective experience, but that experience is not related to spacetime.

Said otherwise: imagine you are in the Matrix at a coffee shop and sense redness, but your brain is actually in a vat somewhere being fed fake sensory input. "Where" is the redness? You would clearly say that it arises in your brain in the coffee shop. Imagine then the vat is moved (so its position in spacetime changes), your brain is rolled back to its previous state, and then fed the same sensory input again. Where is the redness now?

You can't differentiate the two sensations of redness based on the actual position of the brain in spacetime. For all intents and purposes, they are the same. Qualia only depend on the internal brain state at a point in time and on the sensory input. Spacetime is nowhere to be found in that equation.

> The two brains don't receive the same sensory inputs

But let's say they do. Identical brains, identical inputs = identical qualia. What differentiates both consciousnesses?

pka

8 месяцев назадdiscuss

It might be deeper than you think.

Qualia exist "outside" spacetime, e.g. redness doesn't have a position in spacetime. If consciousness is purely physical, then how can two identical systems (identical brains with identical sensory input) giving rise by definition to the same qualia not literally be the same consciousness?

pka

8 месяцев назадdiscuss

It seems models are pre-planning though:

> How does Claude write rhyming poetry? Consider this ditty:

> He saw a carrot and had to grab it,

> His hunger was like a starving rabbit

> To write the second line, the model had to satisfy two constraints at the same time: the need to rhyme (with "grab it"), and the need to make sense (why did he grab the carrot?). Our guess was that Claude was writing word-by-word without much forethought until the end of the line, where it would make sure to pick a word that rhymes. We therefore expected to see a circuit with parallel paths, one for ensuring the final word made sense, and one for ensuring it rhymes.

> Instead, we found that Claude plans ahead. Before starting the second line, it began "thinking" of potential on-topic words that would rhyme with "grab it". Then, with these plans in mind, it writes a line to end with the planned word.

[https://www.anthropic.com/research/tracing-thoughts-language...]

pka

8 месяцев назадdiscuss

> and are trying to justify it in reverse

In split-brain experiments this is exactly how one half of the brain retroactively justifies the action of the other half. Maybe it is the case in LLMs that an overpowered latent feature sets the overall direction of the "thought" and then inference just has to make the best of it.

pka

8 лет назадdiscuss

I agree, but it’s the best you can get if for some reason you’re stuck with Clojure.

pka

8 лет назадdiscuss

For Clojure, check out Ghostwheel [1] - a lightweight DSL for writing specs.

If you want proper static typing though, ReasonML might be a good choice. Static, compiles to js and native, super easy to learn, and there’s an experimental Lisp frontend with Clojure-like syntax if you can’t live without paredit.

[1] https://github.com/gnl/ghostwheel

pka

10 лет назадdiscuss

Sure, sucks. But anyway, would you like to live in a place where the majority of people don't like you? It's going to be a fact with our without referendums or laws.

pka

10 лет назадdiscuss

I'm also of the conviction that everybody should do whatever they want if they don't hurt/bother anybody else. However, a consequence of this is that people will have to waive certain freedoms if the majority is bothered by them, like building whatever they'd like on their private property.

Sure, let's say not being allowed to build minarets because people don't like that is bullshit.

But let's also imagine I buy some land in front of the kindergarden your children go to and build a giant wall showing hardcore porn movies all day. Now probably you and the majority of people living there wouldn't like me to do that, but it's my damn right so gtfo.

It's a slippery slope both ways (minarets, gay people can't kiss in public, porn walls) and I have no idea how to draw the line between what the majority wants and the invasion of personal freedom. More importantly, neither the majority nor any elected officials should be allowed to draw that line (almost by definition), so it seems it's a catch 22 situation.

comments