corbin

I can't stop chuckling at this burn from the orange site:

I mean, they haven't glommed onto the daily experience of giving a kid a snickers bar and asking them a question is cheaper than building a nuclear reactor to power GPT4o levels of LLM...

This is my new favorite way to imagine what is happening when a language model completes a prompt. I'm gonna invent AGI next Halloween by forcing children to binge-watch Jeopardy! while trading candy bars.

The books look alright. I only read the samples. The testimonials from experts are positive. Maybe compare and contrast with Lox from Crafting Interpreters, whose author is not an ally but not known evil either. In terms of language design, there's a lot of truth to the idea that Monkey is a boring ripoff of Tiger, which itself is also boring in order to be easier to teach. I'd say that Ball's biggest mistake is using Go as the implementation language and not explaining concepts in a language-neutral fashion, which makes sense when working on a big long-lived project but not for a single-person exploration.

Actually, it makes a lot of sense that somebody writing a lot of Go would think that an LLM is impressive. Also, I have to sneer at this:

Each prompt I write is a line I cast into a model’s latent space. By changing this word here and this phrase there, I see myself as changing the line’s trajectory and its place amidst the numbers. Words need to be chosen with care, since they all have a specific meaning and end up in a specific place in latent space once they’ve been turned into numbers and multiplied with each other, and what I want, what I aim for when I cast, is for the line to end up in just the right spot, so that when I pull on it out of the model comes text that helps me program machines.

Dude literally just discovered word choice and composition. Welcome to writing! I learned about this in public education when I was maybe 14.

I'm guessing that you're too young to remember. Lucky 10000! In the 1990s, McDonald's was under attack for a variety of anti-environmentalist practices, and by 2001 there was a class-action lawsuit against them for using beef tallow in fries from a coalition of vegetarians, vegans, and primarily Hindus who were deeply offended that they had been tricked into consuming what they consider to be a sacred animal. In a nutshell, it's a very racist and revanchist move, not just an anti-environmentalist move.

Unlike normal, I can't link to good peer-reviewed articles on the topic. McDonald's is one of the few groups who can successfully control their Internet presence, and they've washed away these controversies as best they can. I almost feel like linking to this summary of the case on Wikipedia is unhelpful, since it's got so many apologetic caveats. They do this all over Wikipedia; McLibel or Liebeck are also heavily edited in favor of McDonald's. You'll have to explicitly add "hindu" or "indian" to search queries; for example, instead of "mcdonalds beef tallow", try "mcdonalds beef tallow hindu indians".

I bet you're thinking of CPAs (not to be confused with CPAs or CPAs), who are the sort of folks that might manage money for the working class. CFAs are something different:

The top employers of CFA charter-holders globally include UBS, JPMorgan Chase, Royal Bank of Canada, Bank of America, and Morgan Stanley.

You shouldn't let any CFA directly manage your assets. Go to your local credit union and get free advice from their CPAs; they often have a standard path to wealth-building for their members, even those without much in the savings account.

On my first two reads, I thought that it was heavy-handed satire with mediocre word choice. But no, I suppose that he's being sincere, in which case I'm glad to notify DHH that Apple products are optional and that a technologist can go their entire lives without purchasing a single Apple product.

Google's incredible work to further the web isn't an act of charity, it's of economic self-interest, and that's why it works.

Same dumb motherfucker who has been pinching pennies due to poor architecture. Does he think public clouds are acts of charity? Or, going the other direction, this is the same entitled prick who has been naysaying universal basic income because he thinks work gives us purpose like a fucking Calvinist. Does he think UBI is an act of charity? No, DHH, you myopic chud, public clouds and UBI are both concepts borne of economic self-interest.

Sometimes, yeah! There was a classic theory of metacompilers in the 1960s with examples like META II. In the 1980s, partial evaluation was put onto solid ground following Futamura's programme, and in the 1990s the most successful team wrote The Book on the topic. My current weekend project is a fork of META II and it evolves by gradual changes to the compiler punctuated by two self-rebuild cycles.

I guess that I'm the resident compiler engineer today. Let's go.

So why not write an optimizing compiler in its own language, and then run it on itself?

The process will reach a fixed point after three iterations. In fancier language, Glück 2009 shows that the fourth, fifth, and sixth Futamura projections are equivalent to the third Futamura projection for a fixed choice of (compiler-)compiler and optimizer. This has practical import for cross-compiling; when I used to use Gentoo, I would watch GCC build itself exactly three times, and we still use triples in our targets today.

[S]uppose you built an optimizing compiler that searched over a sufficiently wide range of possible optimizations, that it did not ordinarily have time to do a full search of its own space — so that, when the optimizing compiler ran out of time, it would just implement whatever speedups it had already discovered.

Oh, it's his lucky day! Yud, you've just been Schmidhuber'd! Starting in 2003, Schmidhuber's lab has published research on Gödel machines, self-improving machines which prove that their self-modifications will always be better than previous iterations. They are named not just after Gödel, but after his First Incompleteness Theorem; Schmidhuber et al proved easily that there will always be at least one speedup theorem which a Gödel machine can never reach (for a given choice of axioms, etc.)

EURISKO used "heuristics" to, for example, design potential space fleets. It also had heuristics for suggesting new heuristics, and metaheuristics could apply to any heuristic, including metaheuristics. … EURISKO could modify even the metaheuristics that modified heuristics. … Still, EURISKO ran out of steam. Its self-improvements did not spark a sufficient number of new self-improvements.

Once again the literature on metaheuristics exists, and it culminates in the discovery of genetic algorithms. As such, we can immediately apply the concept of gene-oriented evolution ("beanbag" or "gene pool" reasoning) and note that, if goals don't change and new genes don't enter the pool, then eventually the population stagnates as the possible range of mutated genes is tested and exhausted. It doesn't matter that some genes are "meta" genes that act on other genes, nor that such actions are indirect. Genes are genes.

I'm gonna close with a sneer from Jay Bellou, who I hope is not a milkshake duck, in the comments:

All "insights" eventually bottom out in the same way that Eurisko bottomed out; the notion of ever-increasing gain by applying some rule or metarule is a fantasy. You make the same sort of mistake about "insight" as do people like Roger Penrose, who believes that humans can "see" things that no computer could, except that you think that a computer can too, whereas in reality neither humans nor computers have access to any such magical "insight" sauce.

I'm sorry you had to learn this way. Most of us find out when SciShow says something that triggers the Gell-Mann effect. Green's background is in biochemistry and environmental studies, and he is trained as a science communicator; outside of the narrow arenas of biology and pop science, he isn't a reliable source. Crash Course is better than the curricula of e.g. Texas, Louisiana, or Florida (and that was the point!) but not better than university-level courses.

Okay. It feels like your comment is totally disconnected from evidence and reality. Also, it feels like you didn't actually want to make a germane comment. Finally, it feels like you don't have anything of substance to add, regardless of relevance.

Spoken like somebody who has zero commits in Chrome or Chromium, to be honest.

A lot of court documents are sealed or redacted, so I can't quite get at all the details. Nonetheless here's what I've got so far:

• Chrome is just the browser, including Chromium, but not ChromiumOS (a Gentoo fork, basically) or ChromeOS (the branded OS on Chromebooks)
• Chrome is unaffordable because it was quite expensive to build and continues to be a maintenance burden
• The government is vaguely aware that forcing a sale of Chrome could be adverse for the market but the court hasn't said anything on the topic yet
• Via filing from Apple, the court is aware that Firefox materially depends on Google, although they haven't done much beyond allow Apple to file as amicus

The court hasn't cracked open AMD v Intel yet, where it was found that a cash remedy would be better than punishing the ongoing business concerns of a duopoly, but it would be one possible solution: instead of selling Chrome, Google would have to pay its competitors a lump sum and change their business practices somewhat.

I am genuinely not sure what happens to "the browser market", as it were. The Brave and Safari teams are relatively small because they make tweaks on top of an existing browser core; the extreme propagation of Electron suggests that once a browser is written, it does not need to be written again. The court may find browsers to be a sort of capital which is worth a lot of money on its own but not expensive to maintain. This would destroy Mozilla along with Google!

I encourage NYC neighbors to spread the idea of deranking. It worked in Portland. We had an exceptionally shitty candidate:

Once touted as the law and order candidate, Gonzalez was the only mayoral candidate cited for breaking the law during the 2024 election cycle.

We pushed to derank him. And the result:

… Gonzalez was the subject of an effort to convince voters not to rank him regardless of the voter's other preferred candidates. Gonzalez earned 20% of first ranked choices but ultimately finished the election in third place …