"He's old and I don't like what he thinks therefore he is wrong" contributes nothing useful to anyone. Richard's remarks have plenty of gaps to drive a reason train through, but this isn't that.

The sooner you understand the models are not intelligent (yet?), the sooner you can avoid acting like it’s their fault.

Memories! I loved Galway and Hubbard (and tigers and bears oh my etc). They managed to do some really interesting things under the constraints. Still love listening to some of it, today.

hubbard was the only big name i grew up with but also played the shit out of arkanoid growing up.

Yes, it's a recurring pattern also seen in European politics.

> Much of the USA accepts "gun deaths" as an unfortunate but acceptable price that must be paid for the widespread freedom to own guns.

Much of the USA recognizes that "gun deaths" are caused by criminals who aren't going to follow any gun laws in the first place.

This response, however, does not really address protecting the children.

"The Moral" section seemed to quite explicitly state the "real point".

> I would assume this could be described in a formal language

The assumption is the first problem, no? If the formal language is complete, it must be inconsistent. If it is consistent, it must be incomplete. If the language is incomplete or inconsistent, you may be unable to encode dog behavior in it.

The article use “describing the behavior of a dog” as something people began to think was possible because of Principia. This is what I don’t get. Was this thought impossible before Principia? On what grounds?

What about describing an electrical circuit formally? Surely this was thought possible before Principia was published.

The assumption made by many in the early 20th century, spurred on by the recent successes of unification and formalization, was essentially that we could formally describe the entire universe. Godel’s proof shows that if you attempt to formally describe something there’s either an inconsistency or it’s incomplete. That doesn’t mean you cannot describe the behavior of a dog formally but it does mean the same formula which encodes the behavior will either be inconsistent or incomplete. It might only be inconsistent or incomplete when applied outside of defining the behavior of a dog though. That’s why the little preamble about unification exists in this post but it’s not very well tied into the rest of the post.

> Godel’s proof shows that if you attempt to formally describe something there’s either an inconsistency or it’s incomplete.

The “something” Gödels proof talks about is axiomatic systems. It doesn’t talk about physical objects.

>This is what I don’t get. Was this thought impossible before Principia? On what grounds?

Even the full formalization of mathematics wasn't considered certain (*) before Hilbert/Principia and those 20th century attempts. Much less the formalization being applied everything in the physical world or even animal behavior.

* in retrospect rightly so, because it wasn't, at least not without inconsistency/incompleteness.

In much the same way that buying produce makes you a great farmer.

Farming is a funny example to use, given that it's one of the best examples of an industry that's continually revolutionized by evolving technology. Farming today is about owning the best tractor.

It's the difference between lovingly crafting heirloom tomatoes in small batches vs producing a consistent multi-ton quantity of tomatoes at an industrial scale.

There are uses for both, but job/compensation wise the heirloom grower isn't in the majority.

no, it makes you a great chef

I think you missed the point.

produce : chef :: code : programmer

chefs use produce to create dishes of food; chefs do not generally grow their own food. the point they were making is that the code is actually the means to the end, not the end in itself. to wit: i do not write assembly.

This may be more correct than you know. Chefs actually don't cook food customers eat. They plan the menu and manage the operations. The cooks cook.

They know how to cook and can if needed, but usually don't bother as they have 15 other restaurants to manage.

No, I understand the point, it means that people drawing the analogies don't understand the original intent was production, not consumption.

A few years younger than OP, and started programming somewhere around 1982. The technology is obviously interesting, the capabilities are fascinating. I use LLMs a very large portion of every day.

The problems, as ever, are 1) what negative things are enabled by the technology, 2) do the positive things that are enabled by the technology outweigh those ("is the price worth paying?"), and 3) how much harm will "stupid" and/or "evil" cause as a result of the technology?

And so on.

The fact that a thing is exciting or interesting or stimulating is neat, for sure, but as always there is no relevant thought given to ramifications.

Humans lag well behind technological advancement, and this particular wave is moving faster than perhaps anything else (because prior technological advances enable it, etc).

It's cool that you enjoy it. Me, too. I might enjoy shooting heroin into my eyeballs, too, right up until I don't.

Why the constant chasing after universally applicable generalizations?

Some of them are pandering. Some aren't. Some care. Some don't.

Businesses with ferocious funding needs are vulnerable to pressure (internal and external) to do whatever aligns with money and power. Money and power will flow into the ones so-aligned. That is the nature of the parasitic extraction models that typically drive decision making at those kinds of companies.

Not the first time I've read descriptions of this kind of behavior (let's call it social conformity) presented as perfectly normal, and I read comments (here and elsewhere) that largely confirm this is normal.

It's pathological dysfunction, however common it may be.

I suppose you can't see it when you're in it.