Corvos
7hr ago
Between you, @Pasha and @ChickenOverlord that's a pretty positive response. I guess I have some new tools to learn :)
Corvos
7hr ago
Plus those numeric processing packages will almost certainly be using C or C++ under the hood for speed, because base Python is just far too slow when processing primitives.
Corvos
7hr ago
It also really depends how you use them - a lot of people open a chat and then ten messages and a bunch of code lookups later they ask for something, then they don't like it so they ask for a correction, the correction is bad and they complain and ask for another correction, etc. So you have 30,000 tokens or more, containing a bunch of broken code that you don't want. Some people use the same chats for days or weeks.
Important points:
- The competency of even the top LLMs drops off rapidly as the number of tokens in the prompt increases. This include the code it looks up, your messages, the code it's writing for you, etc. Always use a new chat for each problem, and if you are getting problems open a new chat to do the corrections where possible.
- LLMs are better at understanding that X != NOT X but still, anything in the chat will influence the output. If the chat is full of stuff the LLM got wrong, even if you are telling the LLM to fix it, it will encourage the LLM to produce more broken code. This is especially true as the context window gets longer.
- Asking for a plan up-front, preferably with options, reviewing it yourself and then requesting implementation works a lot better to avoid self-owns where the model gets carried away and forgets it's trying to solve a specific problem.
But yeah, sometimes the LLM just derps.
Corvos
14hr ago
Demand is mostly consumers, supply is mostly corporations.
People (consumers) really don't like the government telling them they can't do stuff. Corporations are much more used to it, and it's professional so their employees don't care so much.
Corvos
19hr ago
I think some of the disagreement around the discernment and snobbery in coffee and other food/drink comes from seeking enjoyment vs getting [active ingredient delivery system].
But also it comes from not wanting to get on a runaway hedonic treadmill. If you refine your tastes to the extent that 70% of the market no longer pleases you, and on average you need to spend 2x to get the same hedons, have you truly benefited?
This is not a straightforward question because there are second order effects here too. For example, raising standards throughout your society may result in better quality stuff at the same or lower prices. But worth considering IMO.
If you allow parsimony to reduce you to a single magisterium, there can be no other way. If you refuse to allow that, well then there's not much I can do to move you.
Yes, this is my point. You have proclaimed that you are right, and therefore that you must be right. Philosophy has been 'solved' for a long time in that if you start off at certain places, you tend to arrive at certain conclusions along reasonably well-trodden paths. It has failed in that in almost every case it is impossible to prove those conclusions to those who don't share them.
Ultimately people tend to cluster philosophically according to their society, their base intuitions and their experience. 'Parsimony' to me means accepting my understanding of the world and myself at broadly face value. I experience agency -> I have agency. I have subjective experience, and we really have no idea of the nature of that 'subject' or how that experience is produced. I find 'free will is an illusion' and 'consciousness is an phenomenon of neuronal voltage shifts' to be motivated reasoning, considerably less parsimonious than accepting the reality of my experience, and proposed broadly because the prospect of two magesteria makes modern people uncomfortable.
That said, I applaud your writing your thoughts down, and I don't want to come across as too salty, but I do think it's wise to consider your conclusions as contingent on certain philosophical choices rather than plain for all to see.
I'll go one further. Every avenue that purports to explore the "hard problem" of consciousness must necessarily smuggle in dualism in just the same way. [...] I simply can't see how any rigorous thinker can go this way.
"Free will" is a popular card [...] a useful fiction
For matter to "choose" to behave differently than physics requires it to would be going right back to dualism again, once again importing that very same separate magisterium - and this time not only in the creative capacity, but in a 'has observable physical consequences' way.
To those who cry out that virtue ethics or deontology or any other framework are needed, hogwash! [...] It's all just fancy window dressing over consequentialist reasoning.
If any deity even could exist, it would be solely one that set the initial condition of the universe and hit go - an entity elsewhere running a simulation that is our universe.
Yes, it is quite possible to airily deny the existence of anything that your theory disagrees with, and therefore prove that your theory is right. It's very popular, and the basis of Scientism. But nevertheless, I am aware that I have a rich inner life, I am aware that I choose to do things and to not do things, and your theory's only response is 'ar har har, of course you don't, it's all an illusion.' Well, I do, and cold realism offers no explanation. Parsimony is a guide, not a master. If I were to psychoanalyse I would say that people are attracted to the feeling of being strong and brave enough to throw away the supposed comforts of lesser men, but it won't work. We're no closer to having a genuine understanding of the human mind than we've ever been, and any claim by neuroscientists otherwise is based on either an incredibly optimistic scaling up of electrode experiments or the naive application of whichever engineering theory is in vogue at the moment. A hundred years ago Karl Lorenz thought that we were switchboards; later we became computer programs and electromagnetic fields, last decade it was Bayes and Temporal Difference Reinforcement Learning and now it's LLMs.
Corvos
1d ago
1 in 20 deaths in Canada is assisted suicide.
Around 96% of recipients identified as white people, who account for about 70% of Canada's population. It is unclear what caused this disparity.
To be fair, it's probably age.
Corvos
2d ago
Pydantic is regularly used, but what about Astra? Are you using astral yourself? Is it in any major open-source projects?
I’ve never seen anyone do package management that wasn’t pip (or conda/apt depending on environment).
Open to it, I’ve just never seen it in the wild.
Corvos
2d ago
I was writing some code to optimise within constraints - basically just a massive pile of nested loops and if statements. It did well so we ported it to production, rewriting everything in C++.
The result was literally hundreds, maybe thousands of times faster. It went from being something that ran with a visible delay to something I could run in real-time.
Corvos
2d ago
I cheated by reading your comment first, but it seemed this way to me as well.
But it's not all levels. I don't think that for the vast majority of people these troubles do exist.
I don't get how you can think that unless you ignore every single official pronouncement about how hard they're working to employ 'diverse' candidates, the massively changing demographics of your society as foreigners are bussed in to drive down wages, being told by practically every single person here that they've seen this stuff...
Some blackpills are very definitely up for interpretation: for example the people worried about the covid vaccine have to interpret certain things about the evidence, how pharma works, how vaccines work, etc. to come to the conclusions they have. Anti-white discrimination is different. They boast about it on every channel possible! People can't wait to tell you how hard they're discriminating against white men! I can't help thinking you are so keen not to be blackpilled that you're putting your fingers in your ears.
Beyond that, let's say you're right. Maybe the pizza dudes are fine. (I doubt it, I've seen the demographics.) It still means that white people are being given an incredibly hard time in better paying areas. Personally, I worked very hard to get into a good school, and then very hard to get into a good university, and then very hard to get into a good PhD and then very hard to get a good job. And at every stage, they clearly and loudly said that it was a shame they had so many white men, and they discussed what could be done to make sure that people like me weren't doing the kind of stuff I'm doing. You couldn’t see the noticeboards under signs about women’s mentorship groups and women’s leadership groups and female-only funding opportunities.
All indications are that it’s starting to work. My friends and colleagues are really struggling to get new jobs. The cohort under me, including my own relations, are having huge trouble and some of them are failing to launch completely. Good for you if you’ve found another way to live your life, but ‘just deliver pizza, bro, it’s not hard,’ frankly isn’t good enough.
These are fully generalisable arguments against ever caring about anything ever, though.
Holocaust? Well, the Jews in Israel are fine.
Rwanda? Some of them make it, no Tutsi can be all Tutsis.
Fired without cause? Well, my brother still has a job.
The whole point of the article is that actually a lot of people are having serious difficulties. You can decide how much you personally care, and to be glad for your own good fortune, but you are not rescuing people by persuading them that their troubles don't exist. There is a spectrum between 'full blackpill' and 'this is fine', and the clear proof for massive discrimination at all levels really ought to be nudging you a bit further along IMO. I have personally seen people I care about fail to launch because of exactly this kind of stuff.
Corvos
3d ago
Noted, and I'm not sure if I agree or not. Please see my reply to @Gillitrut.
I have had some respect for my managers too, don't get me wrong. It's just that I also note that management has massively increased and I wonder how much of
prioritizing the work for me and other team members. Coordinating work across teams. Translating high level strategy shifts from higher level executives into concrete terms for people like me
really, really actually is valuable compared to the 1930s where this work was not done to the same degree. It feels valuable, but is it? Are those strategy shifts really necessary? Are lower-level workers essentially allowing their own abilities to plan and coordinate to be taken over by their manager? Is this all optimisation that gets 99% of the juice out of the orange instead of 95% at the expense of vast amounts of extra work? Is this all a Red Queen problem?
Those aren't rhetorical questions, they're questions I really don't have the answer to. Modern society has broadly done away with the originals (which one could take as evidence of efficacy, or of public goods issues) and for caste reasons I don't really trust the institutes like Harvard Business Review whose job is theoretically to answer these questions.
It is often argued that management is, by and large, a bullshit job because it has expanded so hugely and yet the same organisations (eg universities and hospitals) used to run perfectly well with smaller numbers.
Management seems to have grown with the ability of people to generate, communicate and store paperwork. If Person A is spending all of their time sending emails to other departments and then Person B is filtering a department’s incoming mail to sort out the dross, we can be back at digging a hole territory.
Previously, if someone took the time out of their day to physically travel to you and tell you something, you could reasonably expect it to be important.
Corvos
4d ago
That's fine, but you shouldn't expect the market to produce outcomes as if it valued something else!
I think that's the point. There is a gap between what people think is a valuable use of their time and what their boss / the market thinks is a valuable use of their time. For example, if some guy is being ordered to dig holes all over the place then being paid to fill them in is providing a marketable service to your employer, but nevertheless the overall work is going to feel stupid and pointless.
Corvos
4d ago
Certainly there have always been boys who feel like natural leaders. I remember noticing at school that certain boys just seemed to have an extra factor to them, some kind of character trait that makes them stand out that bit more. I was never able to work out what it was, though. You could say confidence but to my mind that is just pushing the problem one step back.
Corvos
5d ago
This is true, but goes too far. Watson did his actual research i.e. his succeeding in the university, because that's where the equipment, the mentorship and the funding was. You cannot strike out and make it on your own as a particle physicist.
It is the case though that pushing people out of the high-status established sinecures can lead to good results in the long term, as long as the new shoots are allowed to grow.
Of course, I also reject the OP's framing that one should consider the net worth of each minority and get rid of the ones who turn out negative. Presumably, most of the Motte would consider it deeply unfair if someone opined that it is fine to treat men as violent criminals, because the vast majority of violent criminals are men.
Your position is enlightened, self-consistent and humane. It is also turning my country into an alien hellscape.
I'm not even being sarcastic, but this isn't working. Enlightened humanism with respect to immigration has been a slow-rolling disaster for Europe, as well as for the principles that you appeal to.
These are high-paying positions in competitive fields
Yeah, why would people be upset about getting shut out of those?
Forgive my sarcasm, but really. Even putting aside the problem of 'as above, so below' and 'writer of international essays writes what he knows', would you say to a reasonably talented black man, "look, high-paying prestigious jobs are in very heavy demand and they don't like blacks, have you considered being a shoe-shiner?".
older white men pulled the ladder up behind them, either for ideological reasons or as a defense mechanism to protect their own positions
And frankly your post is the kind of thing they say. It's not that it's untrue, it's that it's only said to young white men, and it's so often said by people actively making it harder for those young men to get good jobs even as they sympathetically advise them to aim elsewhere.
What reaction are you expecting? At least a third of our posters already have kids and regularly comment on how fulfilling they find it, and another third (myself included) are very vocally unhappy that they haven't been able to start a family. We have a few out-and-proud horndogs around but definitely below a third.
At the risk of being provocative, you seem to be very invested in this idea that 'boys only want one thing'. What would it take in terms of evidence to genuinely change your mind?
More options
Context Copy link