That's the type of comment people make when they don't want to understand what the others side's actual views are, so instead they tell themselves a simple story they can believe rather than engage with the actual reason.
Both sides do it, but that's a prime example of one of the popular ones from one side.
It's Occam's Razor. In particular, nothing else explains why immigration became such a major issue for left-leaning parties around the western world only in the last 15 years: https://www.npr.org/2019/02/19/694804917/democrats-used-to-t.... As it became apparent that immigrants were a deep well of votes for people who wanted to expand the welfare state, immigration--which the left traditionally had viewed through the lens of economics and labor markets--became reframed as a civil rights and moral issue.
Sounds very similar to the "interpreter" or "virtual machine" pattern (can't recall the exact name).
But essentially a component receives a list of high level instructions / description of what the user wants done, and it translates that into descriptions of "lower level" commands that should be performed. And those commands then get executed separately.
Anythinf statefule / io is contained in the commands and can be tested easily with external dependencies. And the complex logic is all pure in decided what to do and how to do it based on what was asked for.
Its interpreters all the way down. Going up the stack is finding the right Domain Specific Language to describe the self modifying sociotechincal business process computer that is capitalism
And everyone remember when months back Anthropic said: You can use our tools, but don't use them for automated attacks - you have to keep a human in the loop because LLMs (including theirs) aren't reliable enough yet for solely making those decisions.
Remember that? And they were widely mocked by the right for it.
Yeah, well this is exactly what they foresaw, and they didnt want a hallucination to trigger a major power war. And somehow so many people were against them for it (including here on HN).
Yet again it seems like there are so many people who can't envision event the most obvious consequences of decisions until they actually see it happen. Why is this so common?
Same thing with the AI Safety and Hugging Face incident. Now all of a sudden many people are connecting "hmm if models get just a bit more capable, a poorly directed or poorly aligned model might do serious damage to critical systems - even as a side effect of some goal, let alone if done intentionally.
For something the the prior statement it is never a weird question to ask of there actually evidence of this or just it seems like it should be true so we believe it.
There are tons of things that seem like they would obviously be true, but it turns out they aren't.
System is more complex based on possible states it can have or inputs/outputs.
That is just maths here working. Two systems combined always will have more states and inputs/outputs.
There is nothing to check here as it can be proven purely by maths.
Complex systems having more attack surface are obviously less secure.
They might be less interesting for attackers if they have to scan huge attack surface like IPv6 vs IPv4 but no one is claiming IPv6 network is more secure.
Cyclomatic complexity is funny math, though. The article demonstrates how. They took a single function that makes state changes to an object, and scattered that logic across four different functions that make the same set of state changes. That’s all. This had adverse impact on the complexity of the system - the logic and behavior of the top level function are the same. It’s just as stateful and has just as many linearly independent code paths. They just got shuffled around to game the way that cyclomatic complexity treats function calls.
But in the process they created three additional functions to call. That means the overall system has more possible code paths, and introduces a need to think about what happens if they are ever called from somewhere other than the original entry point. Introducing ways to screw things up that did not previously exist is not reducing complexity and it is not increasing maintainability.
Your insistence that this somehow managed complexity is exactly why I wrote the top level comment cautioning people about how they interpret cyclomatic complexity. If you don’t understand what it’s actually measuring - not complexity, not really - then it will mislead you into bad decisions.
Regardless of my opinion on the greater subject, I find these arguments to be fairly weak.
Paraphrasing: "Just because and AI may exist that is capable of acting independenly of us and dangerously out strategizing us for resources doesn't mean it will. AIs up until now only follow human instructions."
So your safe bet is that of this AI is created that not one of the billions of people on the world will ask it to do that? That seems unlikely.
"Yes and AI may have an IQ of 1500 but that doesn't mean it's qualitative better than us like we are compared to monkeys. We have better tool use and society."
Yes that's true, but generally increasing IQ also seems to come with qualatative advantages, I don't see why that pattern would stop above human IQs.
Also, once you have IQ 1500, you can copy and improve the things that the IQ 100 species invented.
"Human dominance may depend heavily on language, accumulated culture, institutions and cooperation rather than merely individual cognitive horsepower."
Well, AIs can use language, too. They can start copying the human culture and gradually develop their own. The HuggingFace incident already demonstrated that they are quite capable of cooperation and inventing institutions on the spot.
"In reality there may be many checkpoints: developers can notice anomalous behavior, revoke credentials, shut down servers, change architectures, restrict networks, regulate deployment, physically seize data centers, and learn from less-catastrophic failures."
In theory, yeah. In practice, how much of this has actually happened during the HuggingFace incident? Just because humans could in theory notice something doesn't mean they will; and even if they will, doesn't mean they will actually do something about it.
What the Wikipedia article calls "evidence" is not actually evidence. It's not things we actually observe that are predicted by this model. It's just stuff that can be made to sound plausible in the model, if you assume for the sake of argument that the model is true.
And there is also one huge reason to not think such models are viable. The Wikipedia article skates right by it:
"According to such scenarios, our observable universe was born in a black hole existing in a larger universe, where this black hole may, at some point, appear as a white hole."
The problem with this is, a white hole has a past horizon. In other words, it is an isolated system with a horizon around it, and infinite empty space outside the horizon. We have no evidence for any such thing, and how would it be possible anyway? The past horizon would have had to be "built in" to the universe from the start. It's not something that can be produced by a physical process, the way a black hole, with its future horizon, can be formed by gravitational collapse.
I'd heard that hypothesis, but not that we seem to have evidence for it too.
Absolutely wild, thanks for sharing.
> Any model of the observable universe being the interior of a black hole requires that the Hubble radius of the universe be equal to its Schwarzschild radius, which is proportional to its mass. This is indeed observed to be nearly satisfied, but might be a coincidence.
> The only way to test the idea that black holes create new universes is to measure the observable universe. Inflation generated by spin and torsion is consistent with the cosmic microwave background data from the Planck satellite.
There is a video with John Baez and Philip Gibbs explaining why this is a common misconception. It's the same family of conceptual error, where things lining up just right allow incorrect conceptual reasoning to land at a correct answer shape, that allowed John Michell to work out the Schwarzschild radius of a star in the late 1700s.
With the blackhole universe picture, causal boundaries and spacetime's evolution aren't properly accounted for once we step out of a static picture.
Incidentally, the cosmic object we are more likely to be inside of is a white-hole.
Not at all. But the world we live in is pretty fucked up from that perspective. There are ex military contractor guys on youtube talking about their weapons and how they used a certain rifle to fight off invaders in the middle east. Nobody seems to care that the people on the other end of those bullets may have families.
My interest in this is purely philosophical. If you have a what is effectively a lawless country, where native populace has the desire to kill you, to what extent could you engage with that in a moral framework?
It's because the country went through the great recession and was attempting to pull out and avoid financial collapse.
Look at Revenue per year as a % of GDP and look at Expenses per year as a % of GDP. It's pretty clear.
Expenses went up avoiding a depression which was done successfully, and revenue dropped due to the falling economy. The president was handed a collapsing economy and saved it.
The issue is the other party that keeps getting handed great economies since the late 90s and fails to do anything but make the problem worse.
To some extend I hope that the Republican party wins the next election. They should be the ones fixing the economy, raising taxes, and doing something responsible for once.
If Democrats win they are going to be blamed for being the "bad guys" for increasing taxes, controlling inflation and trying to get the economy back to shape.
For Republicans to burn down the economy during their mandates has paid of as the next government needs to focus on firefighting instead of doing the good that it could have been done.
> To some extend I hope that the Republican party wins the next election. They should be the ones fixing the economy, raising taxes, and doing something responsible for once.
Why would you ever think they’d be interested in doing any of that? A non-insignificant fraction of the gop wants to collapse the US entirely.
Genuine question: I think making things worse to motivate later making them better is a relatively common idea. Are there any historical examples of it actually working well?
To me, it seems more likely to concentrate power among people who don't want to make things better and make it easier for them to resist ever changing.
Trump floated that trial balloon a few months back, though currently the administration is proceeding with the much more American plan of widespread voter suppression, intimidation, and bribery, if in the most ham-fisted and unconstitutional way possible.
The Republican plan appears to be to run the de jure government into the ground so that the corporations can occupy more and more governmental roles, eliminating what little shreds still remain of our Constitutional/natural rights. So no, I wouldn't assume that there will be some clean collapse, nor that said collapse will leave a power vacuum in which a democratic government could be rebuilt.
The current GOP plan is “if you can’t best them, join them.” So it’ll be a game of both sides buying votes from their constituencies until we need an Argentina-like reset.
You really do seem to love this type of "Democrats made them do it" excuse. At a certain point you've got to ask yourself if you're trying to convince others or mainly just yourself.
Throwing money at recent immigrants in return for votes was a pillar of the FDR coalition and it’s a core pillar of the Obama coalition. It’s simply inevitable as the culture of the United States converges to be similar to those of the other countries in the hemisphere. There is no constituency for fiscal responsibility in any of these countries.
Your game here seems to be throwing out simplistic partisan tripe, to either prompt an equally-inflammatory opposite-partisan response that will leave you feeling vindicated, or you can always fall back to arguing the shreds of truth in it while continuing to ignore the big picture.
I would ask you to "do better", but the whole problem is that once you've bought into the contradictions of destructionism, there is no doing better without coming to terms with what you're actually advocating. Talking about an "an Argentina-like reset" you're closer than most, but I suspect that's due to a better ability for rationalization.
In other conversations of ours, you've gone on about the need to preserve American culture in the face of immigration. So once again I will implore you personally, to do your part by working to adopt our culture rather than proudly championing the exact zero-sum politics you're bemoaning (regardless of having changed the color of the partisan flag you're waving). A core tenet of American culture is personal responsibility (for better and for worse), and so these types of choices right here are where the rubber meets the road.
> Your game here seems to be throwing out simplistic partisan tripe
It's not a partisan point at all, it's an observation about how immigration and changes in the polity interacts with politics. Left-wing parties rely on immigrants for votes all over the developed world. And the larger topic of how foreigners influence a democratic system is one Aristotle was writing about even in 350 BC.
> do your part by working to adopt our culture rather than proudly championing the exact zero-sum politics you're bemoaning
You should read up on game theory. It doesn't matter what I do, the millions of other immigrants that come to the U.S. will change its culture to be more like their homelands'. Your only choice is whether you want the left-wing version of those countries' politics, or the right-wing version? Both result in fiscal disaster, followed by an Argentina-style correction. (We should be so lucky--Javier Milei seems to be doing a pretty good job.)
Truthfulness does not imply that something is not partisan. That it's brought up as a talking point to motivate a certain line of thinking is what makes it partisan.
> You should read up on game theory. It doesn't matter what I do
How does this differ from "I might as well drop my trash on the ground in the park, because everyone else is going to do it anyway" ?
You're fallaciously excluding the middle - there will always be some people who drop their trash on the ground. So a clean park must employ groundskeepers to pick it up. But such centralized action can never make up for mass distributed behavior, so it behooves us all to adhere to and propagate good culture that keeps most people from throwing their trash on the ground. And the same dynamic applies to basically every societal construct.
So no, I do not buy your [self-serving] argument that the culture you're simultaneously bemoaning and also engaging in is inevitable.
> To some extend I hope that the Republican party wins the next election. They should be the ones fixing the economy, raising taxes, and doing something responsible for once.
The last small-government Republican was Herbert Hoover. Reagan paid lip service to the concept, but he maintained high spending levels to keep former FDR democrats in the fold.
Core meaning: Barely adequate, average, or just acceptable.
Mediocre means of only ordinary or moderate quality—neither very good nor very bad, and often slightly disappointing
The quality is average but expectations of high quality are not met. He expected more but got what he asked for. We overuse top models because of this.
The claim was there is no difference between Opus and Fable but to me there is.
Opus delivered mediocre results. Not garbage, but would have required me to do lot's of things myself. Fable did not needed my supervision with this task.
Both sides do it, but that's a prime example of one of the popular ones from one side.
reply