Author, philosopher, programmer, entrepreneur, father and husband.
You must be someone who hates working from home, because home is the place where we should all feel relaxed, right? What about working in the garden? The garden is certainly a relaxation spot, but god forbid you get some rays of sunshine while you work.
I understand the desire to pity people who work at the beach. But then again, I pity anyone who ended up living near Silicon Valley. Think of all the money though!
Have you tried disabling the file indexing service? I think it’s called Baloo?
Usually it doesn’t have too much overhead, but in combination with certain workflows it could be a bottleneck.
Your comment is fair. I try to follow my own philosophy, so I picked a side and stand for it. I feel strongly about it, so that’s why I may use hyperbole at times.
Yet I understand it’s not everybody’s opinion, so I try to respect those people even when I don’t necessarily respect their positions. It’s a tough line to draw sometimes.
So I’m the literal author of the Philosophy of Balance, and I don’t see any reason why LLMs are deserving of a balanced take.
This is how the Philosophy of Balance works: We should strive…
But here’s the thing: LLMs and the technocratic elite funding them are a net negative to humanity and the world at large. Therefore, to strive for a balanced approach towards AI puts you on the wrong side of the battle for humanity, and therefore human history.
Pick a side.
May the depression be long lasting and heartfelt in the United States of AI.
See here for a possible solution to turning a global China into a sustainable hybrid of communism and capitalism: https://philosophyofbalance.com/blog/new-monarchy/
I’m gonna wait for backup on this one.
As the author of https://blog.fiberplane.com/blog/writing-redux-reducers-in-rust/ , I do feel offended. Very badly.
I have it on reliable authority that women like boobs too. Source: am married
That’s why you should go work at big corporate enterprises. Then you have both job security as well as the ability to spend as much time as necessary on getting things right. And you might even learn to say no to middle management.
I am literally wrapping up a novel where the protagonist is the antagonist at the same time. I’m not the first one to write such a story of course, but holy shit did I have to work through some internal trauma to write that story to a suitable ending. I understand why many people may not want to bother…
Don’t be so gloomy! You’re an individual number too! 😜
Shun the nonbeliever!
I’m not sure I agree with the “no one claimed” part, because I think the proof is specifically targeting the claim that it is more likely than not that we are living in a simulation due to the “ease of scaling” if simulated realities are a thing. Which I think is one of the core premises of simulation theory.
In any case, I don’t think the reasoning only applied to “full scale” simulations. After all, let’s follow the thought experiment indeed and presume that quantum mechanics is indeed the result of some kind of “lazy evaluation” optimisation within a simulation. Unless you want to argue solipsism in addition to simulation theory, the simulation is still generating perceptions for every single conscious actor within the simulation, and the simulation therefore still needs to implement some kind of “theory of everything” to ensure all perceptions across actors are being generated consistently.
And ultimately, we still end up with the requirement that there is some kind of “higher order” universe whose existence is fundamentally unknowable and beyond our understanding. Presuming that such a universe exists and manages our universe seems to me to be a masked belief in creationism and therefore God, while trying very hard to avoid such words.
The irony is that the thought experiment started with “pesky weird behaviours” that we can’t explain. Making the assumption that our “parent universe” is somehow easier to explain is really just wishful thinking that’s as rational as wishing a God to be responsible for it all.
I’ll be straight here: I’m a deist, I do think that given sufficient thought on these matters, we must ultimately admit there is a deity, a higher power that we cannot understand. We may as well call it God, because even though it’s not a religious idea of God, it is fundamentally beyond our capacity to understand. I just think simulation theory is a bit of a roundabout way to get there as there are easier ways to reach the same conclusion :)
It’s possible yes, but the nice thing is that we know we are not merely talking about “advanced people with vastly superior technology” here. The proof implies that technology within our own universe would never be able to simulate our own universe, no matter how advanced or superior.
So if our universe is a “simulation” at least it wouldn’t be an algorithmic one that fits our understanding. Indeed we still cannot rule out that our universe exists within another, but such a universe would need a higher order reality with truths that are fundamentally beyond our understanding. Sure, you could call it a “simulation” still, but if it doesn’t fit our understanding of a simulation it might as well be called “God” or “spirituality”, because the truth is, we wouldn’t understand a thing of it, and we might as well acknowledge that.
I think there is an objective good. That goodness is Life itself. So long as we treat all Life with respect and try to live a life of balance, that makes us good. You are right though that this is still a very simplified view, and what it means to “live in balance” can depend on the situation or environment. But it’s a starting point at least.
As for forgiveness, it’s a choice. If someone makes an honest mistake, it should be easy to forgive them, as whatever harm they caused was not intentional. But if someone makes a wilful mistake, it will be harder to forgive them. And yet, because forgiveness is a choice, we can look at the reasons why someone acted in a manner that was harmful, and still decide to forgive them, especially if they repent.
As for consequences, those are results of our actions, whether intentional or unintentional. They are not strictly related to the concept of forgiveness, but generally speaking, we find it easy to forgive someone if their actions are harmless, or if the consequences don’t affect us personally. But if someone’s actions do affect us, we find it harder to forgive, regardless of whether something was an honest mistake or not. But the key to forgiveness, in my opinion, is that we need to look beyond the consequences and look beyond how we were personally affected. Forgiveness is a choice, and that choice is easier to make if our emotion is not muddied by consequence.
Great points, except:
People can’t leave for anything smaller.
They can and some do. It’s still a choice.
So I do consider myself to be a true full-stack developer, since I do have 5+ years of experience working on each of server-side, CLI, desktop applications, and mobile applications and 10+ years on the web frontend. Then again, I’m 40 and I feel too old to get offended over that shit. I also agree the term “full-stack” is diluted as hell, so I don’t even call myself that anymore.
Now get off my lawn :p
Narrator: Rust has indeed already proven a very valid alternative.