Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | dcre's commentslogin

TS + Deno + dax is my favorite scripting environment. (Bun has a similar $ function built in.) For parsing CLI args, I like the builders from Cliffy (https://cliffy.io/) or Commander.js because you get typed options objects and beautiful help output for free.

If you want to script in Rust, xshell (https://docs.rs/xshell/latest/xshell/) is explicitly inspired by dax.


There's also zx (https://google.github.io/zx/). I use it every now and then and it's generally been a blast.

matklad made xshell

Oh! Well that makes sense.

Incredibly ironic to make this argument using such an abstract and low-dimensional framework.

I just don’t think the question is about determinism and probability at all. When we think, our thoughts are influenced by any number of extra-logical factors, factors that operate on a level of abstraction totally alien to the logical content of thought. Things like chemical reactions in our brains or whether the sun is out or whether some sound distracts us or a smell reminds us of some memory. Whether these factors are deterministic or probabilistic is irrelevant — if anything the effect of these factors on our thinking is deterministic. What matters is that the mechanical process of producing thought is clearly influenced (perhaps entirely!) by non-rational factors. To me this means that any characterization of the essence of thinking that relies too heavily on its logical structure cannot be telling the whole story.

I had high hopes for this essay because I’ve tried many times to get people online to articulate what they mean by “it doesn’t really understand, it only appears to understand” — my view is that all these arguments against the possibility of LLMs thinking apply equally well to human beings because we don’t understand the process that produces human thinking either.

But the essay is a huge letdown. The European vs. American framing obscures more than it illuminates. The two concepts of intelligence are not really analyzed at all — one could come up with interpretations under which they’re perfectly compatible with each other. The dismissal of Marx and Freud, two of the deepest thinkers in history, is embarrassing, saying a lot more about the author than about those thinkers.

(For anyone who hasn't read much Freud, here's a very short essay that may surprise you with its rigor: https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/...)


And it’s just a restatement of the original, which isn’t any good either. Really mediocre.

To be clear, the company has very directly denied doing this.

They did yes, but should we trust them?

I remember clearly this problem happening in the past, despite their claims. I initially thought it was an elaborate hoax, but it turned out to be factually true in my case.


I tend to think it would be very hard and very risky for large, successful companies to systematically lie about these things without getting caught, and the people who would be doing the lying in this case are not professional liars, they’re engineers who generally seem trustworthy. So yes, if there is a degradation, I think bugs are much more likely than systematic lying.

The TPU implementation used approximate top-k instead of the exact used on nvidia. While that wouldn't matter too much and there was a bug with it, it still was a cost savings thing not to use exact from the beginning because it wasn't efficient on TPUs which they were routing to under load. So it was a bit of a model difference under load, even aside from the bug.

To the extent this is an accurate characterization (somewhat, I think), they considered the quality difference a bug and fixed it!

Growing up I would see authors listing particular species of trees when describing a scene, and I’d marvel at the idea of someone getting all the references. It seemed so old-timey. But during the pandemic, my wife and I got into plants because it was an outdoor activity. I used an app to identify all the trees in our neighborhood (then we found out our town has a map online of them all). I have my favorite ones I like to go by on walks. In a given area there are really only 10 or 15 species you have to know to cover most of the trees you see. Being aware of these things adds depth to the world as you experience it.

I really don’t think search captures the thing’s ability to understand complex relationships. Finding real bugs in 2000 line PRs isn’t search.

Likewise!

+1. This thread, the thread about documentation, and the thread about turning off Sprites, when taken together, thoroughly illustrate why I'm not currently a Fly user.

To me, debunking hype has always felt like arguing with an advertisement. A good read about that: https://www.liberalcurrents.com/deflating-hype-wont-save-us/

Hard to take that seriously. It’s a political hit-piece. Which I guess is most things today, but I don’t take those seriously either.

Masks during Covid and LLMs, used as political pawns. It’s kind of sad.


Are we talking about the same article?

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: