No, the original "they're made out of meat" works because we're confident that we are in fact intelligent and conscious, despite how ridiculous and unlikely the author manages to make it sound.
"They're made out of weights" works precisely because LLMs really do have this mysterious property that they seem somehow intelligent even though nobody can explain exactly why, and there's active debate over whether they could be considered conscious.
The thing being discussed isn't simply an arbitrary MacGuffin; in both cases the nature of the thing is central to the impact of the story.
I disagree; it works in the original because it's the unlikely consciousness that produces the text itself; in the LLM case, it's produced by the likely consciousness.
"Imagine how other intelligences would view us", written by us, hits a lot less hard when it's "imagine how our intelligences view a thing we are claiming is intelligent", not written by it.
> Imagine how other intelligences would view us", written by us, hits a lot less hard when it's "imagine how our intelligences view a thing we are claiming is intelligent", not written by it
This is well put. We don't need to imagine how a human views a llm because we can ... just do that. Everyone capable of reading the story is also capable of thinking about how they feel abouy llms that exist right now and you've probably used.
The trick of the original story is inverting your perspective, moving your view point fron yourself to an "other" (which I think is a primary qualifier for most good fiction).
Just wanted to say, I appreciate your patience and good sense in this thread.
It's difficult to tell who's trolling -- probably best to go with the charitable assumption that everyone is honestly trying to convey their opinion, but mostly talking past each other. Unfortunately these discussions about the nature of consciousness never go anywhere useful.
I think I'm probably in the same boat as you, roughly: a) LLMs are doing something really interesting that resembles in many ways both intelligence and consciousness; b) I suspect they're not actually conscious but I don't know how you'd know for sure; c) it all just drives home that we still don't really know what consciousness actually is. But like (a), it's definitely something really interesting...
Yes, I have to say I’m disappointed. Chiang has been very insightful in the past -- I think his recent “blurry JPEG of the web” article was really useful -- but this one doesn’t seem to bring anything new to the table.
Nice work, this is fun! I've only played against the AI so far, managed to win on Beginner.
I think it would benefit from some little animations so it's clearer what's going on. But making that work nicely across both desktop and mobile could be a real pain, so I wouldn't blame you for punting it until later. :)
A smaller suggestion: maybe draw all the spare pieces on screen, rather than just displaying e.g. "15 pcs" as text. That way you can see at a glance when your stock is dwindling. Experts won't need that but it could be useful for beginners.
I was wondering the same thing. That translateZ is a bit fiddly to get right, so I could believe this is a bit easier to use, maybe? And presumably this could be used for other properties besides position, like colors, opacity or blurs.
Yes, I’d be wary of going anywhere near this for that reason alone. You can’t just say “the keyboard is terrible” but then that you still like it overall -- more detail needed!
Yeah, in particular it looks like the complaint was about having to hit the center of the keys exactly, which seems quite bad.
I’ll learn a weird layout for a netbook, some compromise is expected to get the small size (side note: I think “unfamiliar layout” issues are over-represented in reviews because they usually describe the reviewer’s experience when they are first getting used to the device, I get used to a layout in the medium term anyway and then it isn’t really a problem anymore (side side note: we should separate out the concepts of unfamiliar and bad layouts, they are different things, the former is overcome over time, the latter gives you repetitive stain injuries over time)).
Having the nail the keys in the middle, though, is just a sign of poor keyboard design. That probably won’t be overcome, if anything it is a sign of bad build quality and will probably get worse over time.
If you’re specifically thinking of native ephemeral workers with very fast startup, it seems like those would have to be sandboxed somehow, and WebAssembly seems like a decent solution. Is there really a significant native code gap between WebAssembly workers and native containers?
Containers seem to only be "Available on Workers Paid plan", whereas Vercel supports it on the hobby account as well.
Kind of relevant on those cheapskate projects that only start paying licenses after the SOW is signed, but already expect some kind of prototyping in place.
WebAssembly is a solution looking for a problem outside the browser, with worse development experience.
If I want bytecode based runtimes, I already have them with first class development experience, and decades of deployment experience, between Erlang, JVM and CLR.
Haven't used Vercel but back in the Heroku/CloudFoundry days it was pretty easy to jam arbitrary binaries into the runtime containers and some of the build packs were flexible enough you could override most of the functionality.
Not sure if that's possible/how easy it is on Vercel
Right -- like the famous zinger about democracy, Google Docs is the worst implementation of collaborative word processing except for all the others that have been tried.
But they’re saying it feels like extortion. The problems of the web aren’t the fault of those extension developers, nor can they do anything about it besides trying to mitigate it. It’s in our best interest that they can do so sustainably, meaning charging for it. It’s not gall, they’re fighting it for themselves and making the solution available for all.
That comment places a lot of blame where it doesn’t lie. It’s like calling surgeons extortionists for having the gall to charge for treating you. Yes, ideally that should be free and available to all, and perhaps if those people had the freedom to choose (e.g. having their own needs met so they didn’t have to work) they would do it. But that’s not how the system is setup, and their skills don’t translate to fixing the problem at the root. Not all of us are cut out to be politicians (and as we all know, being well-intentioned as one still doesn’t mean you have the power to enact policy).
The definition of extortion is the coercion of money in "exchange for protection", where the threat to be protected against is typically perpetrated by the coercer. I'm not using the term in the literal sense, as if an antivirus software firm is producing computer viruses. Thus, this case "feels like extortion", not "we are being extorted". (It may as well be advertising firms selling ad blocking software because the net effect to the end user is the same, but I digress.)
FWIW, I don't consider surgeons to be extortionists. That's an absurdity that you are using as illustrative of why I'm wrong to call software developers extortionists when they charge for a privilege that should be a right. There are two issues with the comparison: 1) I did not call software engineers extortionists (but sure, I can see how you drew that conclusion), and 2) people absolutely should have a right to life-saving surgery and should not be denied on the basis of payment.
There is a huge preexisting problem: health care is not a human right [1]. There are other issues with health care that isn't just money. Many life-saving transplant patents are stuck in a wait list, for instance, and many die waiting. I do what I can. I'm a registered organ donor and try not to destroy my liver. I just haven't died yet, and I still need it. But this line of reasoning is off in the weeds, and I won't pursue it further.
Perhaps what it comes down to is that you have a pro-capitalist outlook, and I have They Live sunglasses.
> FWIW, I don't consider surgeons to be extortionists.
Of course, that’s the point of the comparison. If I thought you thought surgeons were extortionists I wouldn’t have used the example because it wouldn’t have served to illustrate the point.
> But this line of reasoning is off in the weeds, and I won't pursue it further.
Indeed, that strayed completely away from the point. This has nothing to do with healthcare.
> Many life-saving transplant patents are stuck in a wait list, for instance, and many die waiting.
I know. I’ve made that point in a sibling comment hours before your post.
> It’s like calling surgeons extortionists for having the gall to charge for treating you. Yes, ideally that should be free and available to all
What do you mean by "should be"? Surgery is free and available to everyone. So why would one accuse surgeons of being extortionists? So I am not sure how the surgeon comparison works. That example supports the parent commenter's point that these extensions should be free.
Of course, there is still the practical question of who will do the work and how they will make a living. We can do what we do for surgeons. Maybe have a nonprofit consortium that people fund, so that it can support the extension developers. Yes, people would be spending money either way, but at least that money would be going toward a larger cause. Just like we pay taxes so the government can fund surgeons, who can then treat people.
I meant “would be”. Not that I think it makes that much difference here.
> Surgery is free and available to everyone.
That’s definitely not true worldwide. I think if you stop for a minute you can come up with at least one country. And even in those where it is free in public hospitals, it’s not uncommon for some to have a waitlist of years to the point you can die before it even happens. Also, did you know there are places where they don’t even have hospitals, let alone surgeons? The world is a big place, lots of disparity.
> So why would one accuse surgeons of being extortionists?
Even given all that, I think if you engage with the argument in good faith and steel man it instead of nitpicking, you’ll understand the point and can come up with your own example to satisfy you. Just pick a job you can’t do and have to pay for someone to fix something which wasn’t your fault or the fault of the other person. I believe you’re a smart person and could surely come up with something with little effort.
> there is still the practical question of who will do the work and how they will make a living.
That’s… The point. Especially for programmers, how many of us would do this shit for free, full time and beyond, for the sole purpose of benefiting others, if we had the opportunity to because we didn’t have to worry about basic needs? A large number. Way less than the number of programmers in the world right now, and that’s a good thing.
> Maybe have a nonprofit consortium that people fund
Fantastic idea. Are you doing it? Can you? Do you know where to start? And if you can’t, is that your fault? Should you be blamed for it? Are you an extortionist? Do you have gall for not doing it?
All fair points. Sorry, I spend a lot of time on regional forums, and I had a brain malfunction and forgot that when I write on HN, I am writing on a worldwide forum. Sorry for the unnecessary nitpicking.
Re non profit, I do donate to a few nonprofits I like, like those working on fediverse and my favorite langs. But I don't know of anything that does this for extensions. I'd have definitely voted with money if something was there. So, yeah, no, I am not doing anything to start a nonprofit for extensions. You have a good point.
> I do donate to a few nonprofits I like, like those working on fediverse and my favorite langs.
You already do more than most, and I commend you for it.
> So, yeah, no, I am not doing anything to start a nonprofit for extensions. You have a good point.
To clarify, the idea here was in no way to put you on the spot. Rather, what I’m saying is that none of us are doing so and that it’s not really fair to blame anyone for it. Most people don’t know how or don’t have the skills or inclination, and that’s understandable.
"They're made out of weights" works precisely because LLMs really do have this mysterious property that they seem somehow intelligent even though nobody can explain exactly why, and there's active debate over whether they could be considered conscious.
The thing being discussed isn't simply an arbitrary MacGuffin; in both cases the nature of the thing is central to the impact of the story.
reply