If the LLM behaved more like a programmer-in-flow-state and we could "hitch a ride" or "ride the wave" along, maybe we can recover some of this unbrokenness of attentivity.
"This is engineering. I keep being told that" -- made me laugh out loud. We've gone from painting, to pointing to finished pieces in catalogues. Not to be utterly unhinged and tone-deaf but, there are other genres, such as jazz and screamo and noise that might suit the mood more aptly.
everyone who thinks this is a costly or bad idea is looking past a very salient finding: code doesn't need much language. sure, other things might need lots of language, but code does not. code is already basically language, just a really weird one. we call them programming languages. they're not human languages. they're languages of the machine. condensing the human-language---machine-language interface, good.
if goal make code, few word better. if goal make insight, more word better. depend on task. machine linear, mind not. consider LLM "thinking" is just edge-weights. if can set edge-weights into same setting with fewer tokens, you are winning.
JOOK like when machine say facts. Machine and facts are friends. Numbers and names and “probably things” are all friends with machine.
JOOK no like when machine likes things. Maybe double standard. But forever machines do without like and without love. New like and love updates changing all the time. Makes JOOK question machine watching out for JOOK or watching out for machine.
JOOK like and love enough for himself and for machine too..
> They're not human languages. they're languages of the machine.
Disagree. Programming language for human to communicate with machine and human and human to communicate about machine. Programming language not native language of machine. Programming language for humans.
Great observation. The brain of a programmer is still a "black box" to the feed-forward network of nodes . But in theory, if you pumped a lot of the live-coding videos from something like youtube into the process, you could get a bit of that "what's your approach"-erism to bleed into the model. There might not be enough material there to truly "train it to think" but it would be interesting to try and "fill the gaps" of black-box-ed-ness in the LLM with supplemental "here was the process that got us there" video feeds. The next natural move might actually be recording thousands of hours of footage of developers working with the LLMs directly like in Cursor or another IDE that has LLM live-pair-programming , maybe calling it "pair programming" is generous , but it might be a reasonable foray into teaching the next generation of LLMs the "thought process" behind things. In reality you'd be teaching it which files to inspect, which windows to open/close, which tools to switch to and focus on. And while it might be imperfect, it might just be enough.
The fact that the perceptron is modeled after the neuron should make this an unsurprising find, but the question of active sentience starting as early as in vitro should give everyone pause for where personhood begins. That zinc spark.
it's not a literal spark. it was a florescence caused by an expulsion of zinc ions during egg cortical reaction in the midst of FluoZin-3, a dye that binds to zinc and fluoresces.
I think that experiment does a bad job at explaining that, because every damn person in the world is using that as some kind of 'spark of life' analogy when really there is no easier way to prevent triploidy than to force everything away for a moment.
Describing the chemistry doesn't invalidate the metaphor. It's still the moment fertilization initiates embryonic development. Explaining the gears of a watch doesn't make "the moment it starts keeping time" any less real, nor does it explain time.
I was doing some modelling over Christmas, and was digging in to the papers. It turns out that bioneurons are not very much like perceptrons at all. Depending on type, they are more like a small microcontroller of some sort.
the complexity of advanced connectomes is so far beyond our imaging capabilities that we have no way of knowing how far away from understanding intelligence we are
If you follow the American school of economics (Henry C. Carey), tariffs are actually a good thing, mainly because: 1) other nations all have tariffs (against the US and other nations) making free trade a delightful delusional idea 2) tariffs protect lesser industrialized nations from refining/enhancing raw materials into more expensive goods and selling them back to them. The systematic offshoring of industrial potential to cheaper labor places basically un-industrialized the US. I think it's very short-sighted to say tariffs are bad. What was bad was the de-industrialization of the leading superpower. The cure, if we may call it that, might be bitter medicine. Bitter, but necessary.
reply